Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional Use Permit 86-50 - Coastal Development Permit 86
Hun ft ton Boach FOuntainVa" Itey z %t,�� 6sre, B 6-A ra of R EALTORSOInc. aeetl": ?Y C U t' yll. - ,ro R E A LTO R 8101 Slater Avenue • Eicnttagton Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847•6093 n `oro f December 1, 1986 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Agenda item D-1 a: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-53 Honorable Council Members: As President of the Hunti n ton Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS, _.1, am pleased to convey - to y7u our. support for the 161 planned unit development on the east side of Lake St. between Atlanta and Pecan as proposed by. the Summer- hill-Development Company and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. We have had the opportunity to review the proposed project nt several ' recent meetings and have attended a couple of presentations by the redevelopment staff, and it is our feeling that the new housing provided by this development in our downtown area will assure a communi.y well-balanced in commercial, resi ! dential. and recreational opportunities to meet the needs of current and potential new residents in our City. In addition, it appears that the realignment of Lake Street will have the second- ary impact of reducing traffic speed on that street, which will certainly benefit ' the ilnniediate neighborhood. Q p y s- . .r With regard to the .concerns expressed b one resident regarding, noise and, ai quality factors produced by the parking garage, we agree that.., the City Council should approve the project and refer it to the Planning Commission for further review of the analyses of these issues in an effort to mitigate the concerns. We urge you to approve Ccnditional Use Permit #86--50. Sincerely, R.L. "Kirk M,r kland Board P residue( RLK/JAS%km. . R.L"KIRK' KIRKLAND. Pr ldent 4F LILA�NO VEIL.F),ICERS Vie Pre'i e t s Pres dent MLS Ch Pia N U CO SE,'SC etary/Treasurer • JAN SHOMAt«R. �econr! Vice , . . , . .`,�. , ;. , ' .•'. ., DIRECTORS KENT M. PIERCE• LARRY GAGE• MAGGIE SHAFFER • JIM RIGHEIIAES• FRANK C.HONZEWSKI ' ILL WOODS. Executtve'Vice Pinsident• JUDITH SEVERY. Vice Presldent,'Public Aflei►s U ' 80 1:5 u nmerhill L�e� elr� men p t C. � anlpany ,CZ� C 1122 East Ur aln Avomur November 24 1985 CA ITI Building d Suite. 11� Q�� m E Onnge Uifornia 92665 rn Z 714 974 9192 { rn;,a CO co II James W. Palin 1 Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 RE: Appeal of C.U. P . No. 86-5C Dear Jim, Enclosed is a copy of Noise & Air, Quality Assessment Report, prepared by Mestre Greve Association for our Huntington Beach project . i ed Greve will be avalible at the December lst City Council hearing For Public or cityCouncil Question . I will call your office Wednesday morning if you wish to discuss report. , Thank you for your assistance. i 'i. Robert Wells Director of. Project Management RW/rrl , cc: Susan Pierce - Associa4.e Planner Florence Webb Senior Planner Marlene A. Fox • l . 16 NO SE eM AIR QUALM ASSESSWNT r,OR THE PARIM rx S" ZUC'TC,rt.E FOR ' .-W S T�1�IU ERIML RESIDEMIAL DEVE •� �I�Cr 1�'xEti"I', , MY OF IIUN7 NGTON BEACH Prepared for SMLMERH'I I DEYELOPMMW CO. 1122 East Lincoln Avenue Orange, CA 92665 i ' 1 Prepared B Fred G reve,P�. MESTRE.GREVE AA►SSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive 5ufto 1.10, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 760-0891 Novem. ,. 12,1986 �i 17 NOISE Ar-M AIR QUALITY ASSESSNIENW FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE FOIE THE SMll-CERI-HLL RESIDEti7AL DEVELOPME'VT, CITY OF t-IUyfifNGTON BEACH 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed residential project (Conditional Use Permit 86-50) includes a parking structure. This structure will be separated from existing residential lots with a 23 foot buffer. The structure will Le one level with the floor of the structure approximately 4.5 feet below grade leaving an additional 4.5 feet above grade. The portion above grade is currently planned to be open. This report addresses the potential for noise and adverse air quality levels impacting the adjacent residences. The City of Huntington Beach has required as a condition on the project (Condition Ih.) that the structure be, Fully mechanically-ventilated, subterranean garage with maximurn projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade; Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and air quality consultant•which would mitigate potential noise and air quality concerns of the adjacentresidendal area. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. A public hearing shall b�. ;et and abutting property owners shall be notified of such hearing, i This report has been prepared to satisfy the second option of the above condition. Measures are proposed which will result in acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential'area and avoiding any significant air quality impacts. Measures recommended include constructing a 6 foot high sound wall at the property line,•installing fiberglass sound absorption board inside the garage area, utilizing a rough garage flooring, and reducing the opening along the rear side of the parking structure from the currently planned 4.5 feet to 2 feet. The miultant noise levels due to the parking structure will be below that currently experienced du: to traffic on Lake Street, and below all City noise standards. 2.0 NOISE ASsESSiv1F. a 2.1 Community Boise Scales Conununity noise levels arc,measured in terms of the"A-wcightcd decibel," abbreviated dBA. A-weighting.is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with`the frequency response d the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides cxarnp:es of various noises and their t{ typical A-weighted noise level. SOUND I.EVELS BIND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUMOOR ENVIRONUENTS rt►Scalt 1VtiEhhdSocutdLeyr(t) t)Z.R-ALI.LEVEL LUUDNESS Sound Ptei+uts C0�11.1MWI Y I1rnss Ju4musal dB(A) Ap�r v0.0002 HOME ORMUS2'RY o(Dxaavrtsdse/i Ike�+ar (awl L..,i .vsre !•1iGtary Iet AittssltTsie.ORVlti�tr AM•lnutw Oe7p%Tarch(121) 120 a(A)22ram is LOA 130 UNC'ONQUITAdLY Rum AimsP.Curia @ SON(130) 120 LOUD Twbt-FtsAirmR @TakeCffP"w RivelisgMechiae(1la) 110 @ 200 it. (M Rack.N-W Bu4(1AW 14) 110 dD(A)16 Tines s t.wd Jct Flyover/P ten a(103) Bneing 707. DC•i Q 6080Yt 100 dB(A)O Times mLox! 100 VERYDd1 MA IldmeUrAng(106) 11dicgAw0100M(IM) LOUD Poorer I�Ic••a(96) 90 Docis O 737,t3C•9 Q a 0 K Km n-pY R ar(97) 90 dD(A)4 Tln%d u 1md Drfwt Las&tte On Mtuacycle @231t(901 Cat%,%'►.h 0 20 R(391 Food Dtamw(it) Rap. AitpboeFlyova@1 COO 1%M) �0 Dieul Tr+xk, 40 MP It Q 30 Tt(N) AlinisO Msclxiat(Oil i0d8(�1)1Tarrtae:a Loud Diettl Thia.1=M,11 Q 100 R (OS) Gaebets Mpotal(IC) 11iOh Utbas AnNOI.atSoa 4(O0) Like Rw aMueie(76) MODERATELY patacnsw Car,QS MPH 0 23 P.(n) !< 70 I.oUn rrf••t,c*50 T3 From Pa vast T�•Atdiq,vsaauus Cteaoer70 1 E.lM10:00 AM(76*or. d) Csa%Register @ 10 R(dT•70) Air Cw4demiaO Unit @ 100 Pt(60) VtcvicTrpc rnttt 010 N(64) 60(D I laud 60 Di hWashw(Rhos)A 10 R.(M t�►1n a Coaversetfao(60) i S0 QUM-, Lur.r,"sraerestt@100Si.00) So dll.4)V4 is Laud Turd Caus(u) ap Lstrts Lirrit Urbw AcebKatScwA(to) a0dn(A)trt>r =AUOIDLE (d0j'A)Sala 1san TL4 nrn:rslrow 10 OF1Tr1MG SOURCE:RepvAxed leant Mstvilla C.Diamh and R.Da1n USA MI U A[ 'le In ft CalimraL 1t►lJiat�ad by tJ+s C;tp of L s Av grJaa,I97Q p L j f MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit i ' CONSULTING E.NGMEERS '1 XSmnleS 0f Typical 5ounC� bevels �, e 00 The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time'period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content(acoustic energy)of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy Content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of 57 dBA. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of comununity noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person, .roves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time cf day. The r predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on dic A-weighted decibel.Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by S dBA, while nighttime (10 p;nm. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA, "60 dBA CNEL;' or simply"60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2. 2.2 Noise Standards The Condition of Approval imposed upon the project does not identify what noise levels are acceptable for the parking structure. Therefore, other City policies at 1 regulations were consulted for g► idance. The City of Huntington Beach commonly requires that new developments be mitigated so that noise levels in private outdoor livings areas (i.e., rear yards and patio areas) not exceed 65 CNEL. Additionally, they require that new developments meet a 45 CNEL indoor noise standard.The 45 CNEL indoor standard is used by most municipalities in the State of California, and also is contained in the California Noise Insulation Standards(California Administrative Code,Title 24, Part 6, Division 725, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Secdons T25-28). The code requires,that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 4, dBA in any hat;`able room." The code requires that this standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single family dwellings.The Noise Insuladon Standards are applied only to new developments. The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 1-.40.010 to 8.40.020) est�lblishes exterior and interior noise standards for noise sources operath-.g on private property and impacting an adjacent land use. The ordinance is traditionally applied to fixed noise sources such as air conditioners or industrial operations. To our kncwledge it has never been applied to a parking garage. However, the noise levels presented in thr.Noise Ordinance represent noise levels that are deemed to be acceptable, and therefore,are a reasonable design goal for the proposed project. Table 1 indicates the noise level and duration that can not be exceeded between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The noise standards are 5 dBA more stringent for the hours 10:00 P.M. to 7 a.nL The residential indoor noise standards =also presented in Table I for daytime hours, and are ' 10 dBA morn strin;r:nt during nighttime hours. 41 i I`•q�S1�eA. t 1(. <'1 .....,'1JCS w�$77i�.'x 4.A-.,t r..... ... ,h• _.. F--- —... � � — _ _ --. , CNEL Outdoor Location --90- 4----Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport 0~80- 4 Downtown With Some Construction Activi4eZZ Urban i1igh Density Apartment —70- Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue '0- -4 ©ld Urban Residential Area - i ..,.50_ —Wooded Residential r-r—Agricultural Crop Land ---40 --- —Rural Residential 4- - Wilderness Ambient -d30-- ILIESTRE GRE'`r'E ASSQCATES CONSULMNG ENOINEERS 1 y�3I6iI 1ltdoar NoISe ' x.eYeYS z } Jdxmes A.RUs11 6851 JarAnes Drive SEPTEMBER 2 , 1986 Hunt;rgton Hcauh,California 92G47 gg TO THE CITY COUNCIL HUNT I NGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 2,' 1986 �r ° • f ,La- �`." SUBJECT ; HUNT I NGTON CENTRAL PARK � SURVEY OF CITIZENS OPINIONS I REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CANCEL THE SECOND ' MOTION REGARDING THE SURVEY MADE BY DON McALLISTcR AT THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING -COMMi�SSION ON AUGUST 18TH, 1966 THAT WOULD REMOVE FROM THE SURVEY THE* PHASE 1 THE' TWO BALL PARKS , PARKING , ETC . THAT WILL COST $990,00000. REQUEST THAT THE CITY REFRAIN FROM BUIL6ING ANY BALL PARKS ' AT THIS TIME , REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL BE SURE TO INCLUDE ANY AND ALL BALL_ PARKS PROPOSALS IN THE SURVEY TO BE MAILED WITH OUR WATER BILLS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY AN ITEM "KEEP THE PARK AS A PASSIVE OR PLACEFUL PARK" . :•1 LET THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HAVE A CHOICE IN HOW THEY = + WANT THE PARK BY REPLYING TO THE SURVEY . "==. SINCERELY,0 . JAMES .A . 'RUSH /!a.1�a�s yp read .. rr r YQ� ptc� �r November 14! 19B6 �--� S Aim:.OIL Dear Members of the Huntington 5each City Council ; As the representative of the residents living adjacent:, to the proposed Summerhill Development Project, we wish to go on record as adamantly opposing the project. We believe there are several significant issues and questions raised by the Planning Commissions actions and respectfully request your consideration of these i SSVL?5 and denial of the project. GgNERAL PLAN -- The General Plan has been devised by Profeasi onal s as a Master Plan for our community. This property is designated for medium density ( 15 units per acre) . The project proposes a density of 32. 4 units per acre which is a 116% increase over the General Plan allowance. This kind of bonus is unheard of in Huntington Reach . ZONING - This area was once zoned r,-• but was downzoned to Did Town Specific Plan to reduce densities. This proposal is, in Effect, re on i ng the property to a higher density wi }hoot the r, benefit of a ze)ne change application. SUCh an application would be turned dawn because of its inconsistency with the General DENSITY - How was the p+ c iect density calculated ? 159 units at h A.; un t. 5 per, acre wc►ul d vtequi re a NET site area of more than 7 acres. This project has only 4 . 9 NET acres. The staff reprirt calculated density or, both a gross and net basis. Although this is informative it is misleading. The cicnsi t y is requi ree to be ba.sGd on NET site area only, not GROSS area. E'.ven if the zoning ' were consistent with the General Plan the ma;c i mum dr_ensi ty allowed w001 ri be 106 units. We a=sump the right-of-way lost in the dedication of Atlanta AvenLN2 is gained back with the vacation of Labe Street- so we have not deduet Ed this from the NET Site calculation. The Density Bonus given to this project is 116% over the General Plan =nd 444: over the zoning . To grant a density borlurs. tt.ie,.%II ty must receive an equal number of affordable units. Dan ' t we already have enough afford-able uni t:r., in 'this area? Al thuunth there is reu:kl l y no comparison in ae,+:theti cs. we feel thei-e is a perfect compari_on in density to the recent `BREAKERS* Project fn the same area. CCJ►�SF'nTI P3� TY_ - Thie. s t�� hrs ,wi i rregol ar con4 i gur6ti'on ( I ong and nar►-ow> . 1'hi E p+r-vuent :; problems when tryi► g' , Lo achl eve cos;pa ~ iaL . ii + �C . acent prop ec t .i e_ . -The only Way n' , com:+atible c-itttattoril cars br- achieved is t'y : �h14tiny hc- bt.0Iding ��_ ... ...._. .- ........_. . .. _..: ...I. •...awl. .... .. .--w�• _.— ___ _—_— _ __� - -' .--_. 1 To: Members of the Huntington Beach City Coune-i 1 Page away from the adjacent single family homes. This cannot be ac_compl i shQd . so the mass of the buildings is within 25 -ft. of � eur rear yards.. and although the buildings are at an angle to our lots, their height of 35 ft. above a semi -subterranean pari;i ng structure oiak.es their presence overbearing. Somewhat like living behind the "Great Wall of China" ' There simply isn ' t room enough on this property to create any kind of bufjer , especially with the proposed density. i OPEN SPACE - How was the open space calculated? Does it include the Niccole Property? Also, if the project is required to have 96, 60O sq. ft. of open space with a minimum dimension of 20 ft. , and the proposal has only 90, .100 sq. ft. but not with the 20 ft. minimum dimension, how much area is there which meets the minimum requirement? Neither we nor the Planning Commission have the ability to determine how much open space has been provided which meets code. UTILITIES - What is the cost to the City to relocate the high v►�1 tage Edison lines which presently exist? In the past they City has refused to accept any responsibility for such relocation I costs. Has this; policy changed? If so, why? CONDEMNATION - Is all the property, in fact, available to be included in the project as proposed? If condemriation of private property is required for this project to go for- ard, '-'-questi on the true "public benefit'' since the public improvement.:.. (i . P. realignment of Lake Street) can be accomplished wi thrrs.i'c this project . also, the project does not conform and we question the validity of condemning a private property for a project that is not in conformance with City cedes. i In conclusion, we oppose the project for the following reasonss 1 . It is inconsistent with the General Plan. 2. The method of calculating the (-%roject density has been misleading. It should be based on a NET site area of 4. 5 ar:res. 3. Does the '`Gi ty_ need al I thR of,�Lrdabl a units that sroul d 'be requi red-'o- this project? s 4. The `property hid already ' been -uownzoned' Hh&-i •. i,, 'a;as"zon'ed Old Town Speci f i c• Pl an'. Thi s is an attQinpt .;to' "rezo+ne the property` without due process. Tu: Mettibers of the Huntingtor. Peach Ci ty Cnunt:i 1 Page 5. The Project does not meet the common open space requirements. i b. We questi or, the necessity and benefi t of the re-z.] .i`gnment of Lake Street . 7. 'rhe City will incur extra ordinary costs to relocats the Edison lines E. Condemnation of private property is being suggested as a way to accomplish this project . 9. The configuration of the property and Lts proximity to singie fami . ;• homes does not s!�pport the proposed densities, and the impact of the project will be detrimental to adjacent properties, bath established and recently developed. 10. The scope, scale, deosi ty and nature of the pro.ic-ct are incompatible with the ad J acent single family homes. We also feel that the Administration, in its zeal to develop the area, has not properly evaluated thi = project, recent. adjacent development, and the future effect on the neighborhood and total community, and has rushed approval of the project . We feel there is an equitable solution of alternative development that the City, developers and residents can live with, while still benefiting the Community _ts well as not creating the tremendous strain on City services required by this Project. We feel that this Project does not provide the aforementioned `equitable' solution. ? Realistical'iy, Southern California is one of the ,most desirable � places to live in the _ World and along with that Orange County...a s }• the most desirable place to live in Southern California. ,Hence, this property is one or the last prime developable areas in. the World. Is this apartment project really appropriate for . thi s property? We feel h concerns Re p em� or i ty, of , , residents ant prcpertyowners in the dw-n- tQwnarea -I light �df the numerous quest raised ref sod by the prof ect we must 'ask, as;4 tha• r bottom 1ine,;awhat• benefits.-are realistically ,'prb'jected '.far the' �' ' z City,'of .,Nunkirigton' Peach and •its most important a Set-'- i'ta . . Citizens? We therefore request your denial of .ttiis, pr-aject . T ,v 1 Resipectfull'y. submitted, FJv'�J` ' Mr and MrS. �Dloiiald Shaven 225 Al abama St' e' ` l Hunf i ngtcn' Peach r Cal i;f clrni a 92648 Re resentin the fol`lowinproperty - owners:`p g 9 1 t To: Members Huntington Beach City COUnci1 Fatty Gl all)LIZ-ina, 149 Alabama Street Mrs. Joseph P. Haa 1 y, 117 Alabama Street Mrs. and , hirs. f:enneth Skol yan , 121 Al abama Street 'Mr. and Mrs. J . Killian, 201 Alabama Street Dr. and Mrs. Martin Erl i ch r 203 Alabama Street Mrs . Carol Jacobs, 207 Alabama Street Mr . and Mre. John Pratto, A"09 Alabama Street Mr . and Mrs. Leon Goode, 215. 215 1 /2 and 219 Alabama Street Mr, and Mrs. Howard Nylander, Jeff Nylander , Mr . -3, Mrs. John Nyl tinder, 227 Alabama Street ti 112, 114 Chicago Mel Heckman, Z503 Alabama Street Mr-. ,& Mrs. Hcrac7 Stovall,, 401 and 40:3 Al _Ibama Street Mr. Ron a I d Green, 114 Alabama Street Mr. & Mrs . Thomas Conlon. 202 Baltimore Mrs. Jahn Pi sanor 220 Alabama Street Mrs. kheta Gillette, 2O Alabama Street Terry Guinan., 210 Alabama Street I 7 f,1. •mot ... • 1 ..�._,..... ..,.. .r. .• ....,.im:'nY': .:r,,Ytl"fR.i!'!.!.Miit:Jlli•JRkL4 .•,N'l�et}.l♦.w• •1^.. .'.f ..'..'r•.w.*.*Mw.41.•�7�3 . __,. �--_.�-- —_.,rr r.w - .. ,.... ,—.__.—_ -__ !, f1'r'YIU�i"�'1t�G'1"'t'�111� A HA�--'V �t 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i December 3, 1986 i Donald Slaven 225 Alabama Srreet Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The CityCouncil , of the „i of Huntfh ton Beach at its regular Y 9 meetir� held Monday, December 1 , 1986 denied your appeal to ,the PI anning' C. mmission approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-50. The City:',Councii approved Conditional Use Permit 86-50 with condi ti r►:is. Please contact the Development Services Department if you have i any questions - 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt CC: Summerhill Dev. Co. 11222 �. Lincoln Ave. Building 4 , Suite 113 Orange, CA 92665 . is 1 .;'1 'tifnells Cl all►kn +cludinQ public �1•'':Qt��+ ..kC t•1 <.� i'�e Sv;levor Court of 0#;inge inl/, rah+ornl� h�rntyl a•t:�� oatad 29 September, 1961, .,+d A.14631. Cateu 1963 � STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange •wb%c ►040" &oven,"ca"Wod 6+ Phi amgavM is MM wl ► PO" I'm 10 vea cwrww wCl(1 OWN I am i CittzPn of the United States and a resident of v,e NV 1 o stAM the County aforesaid. 1 am over the age of eighteen M"W6,W1I +sd' years, and not a party to or Interest,)d in the beiow oN hiLE.71`� c••, entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange ib^1'�f1a�rA' Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the rtw'�� NEWS-PRESS. a newspaper of general circulation, EI�Edf. - printed and published to the City of Costa Mesa. stld�rlNr#n >'�nd County of Orange. State of Califcrnia, and that aw ' Notice of PUBLIC HEARINGlip we on -- Au"IMob of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete 1 D �TNidRt4li copy, was printed and published to the Costa Mesa, �'. C4 AYIIfrG 1c;1L�° ♦cw.w.. 11� �+: Newport Beach, Hunttnglon Beach, Fountain Valley, •�-----�.-� =rudModrwpu't^.oMre t �+�•t"I�b>rt�t�01+�.4+`rk e?F ,t�of t�kn�erwbit''`` Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna , ""Won . .t����..r,•lr ,` Beach Issues of sa,a newspaper for C -• TIME . , ,;;•,�� ; ,.,-�.,� ,ti . .,.-_..:;�__�, ]ti�r55kts:?iK'Ch4'el±8ta wit the issue($) of ;+� ►�JiPlIIrRiYltLtslF, 7; �, �ty0ll�trlt�iltll:t1�` _! No. j T•.o���nber 5 6 �N44tt+Ltb.'nH�tSBY ....._— .,.__ 19 B '1►F11.tt+at'e:o�- ncrioo ,�qN tk>�c�1�lA I<1a10 � Mlivtrl�M�eM t:�irr1•; 198 � '�tNrrlbar'et�,St�'tlw►t:, 1nNor` �; pniis}�otri U !lrit,efR2+e Mod,ab tom:tMti,'Iel� 1,.8 Ie�t'�d ti�yya�r tb t+kfllMa rnd bOfIKIQiILibd d1�t4M+Ms'Ar I 1a►' �e p1iQ IvA&h ilo:t+A hard re1sohra le.she +�pth Ctr t?!.t0e6 198 �`dU�EC� �;tongitlo`a>t� • Per t+o,it�tQ rip' �;t>�trk��2,r',ttrc>MfNi I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ; foregoing is true and correct, ;;ovamber 6 6 Executed on _ , 198 at-C to Mesa, Cafi'J le• .r.t. rlt i►rd, a, .t� . 'at tyke Itt+we a x, Signature ` ii►� i Ors P'SOOF OF PUrUCATIO 17 f.:t Y OF HUNTINGTONVEACH . :t INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICotTION ` „ususp 4,cnco b AJ A;/;A G�1 Gt��t4)0'1 W S To Charles F7. Thompson. ;=rom James W. Palin , Direc or City Administrator Development ervice Subject SUMMERHILL APPEAL Date . November 251 . 1986 OF C014DITIO14AL USE PER!-:IT NO. 86-50 Today we received a copy of the Noise and Air Quality Assessment report prepared by Fred Greve, P. R. Meat_re Greve Associates, wherein they have assessed hot:h thF, potential noise anI air quality impacts associated with the 'parking structure fcr the Summe" rhill" proie�4.t . o Noise Mitigations With m' g - ii igdt-.iors including provia3.ng a ti ' •` wall along the property line of the adjacent residences, reduction of the roar opening of the parking garage from 4 . 5 ' to 21 , providing sound absorbing material on 'the wallsof the garage and using textured floor ng, ,the consultant ..i :;'ludes that the noise level emanating from the-garage mould ,be below the maximum al-lowab:le noise levels 'contained in the Ci ty 's noise ordinance . o Air Quality - The �:arking, garage will increase carbon, monoxide levels at the existing rest: y up-to The dances k� u to 9$ -�I projected levels wile ,retain below the state ambient ai.t 11 quality standard of 2U PPM and the federal .o£ 35 PPM. The � I consultant .states that single level , open, parking garages i seldom result in significant air quality deterioration.: ,and in ' fact, enclosed fatalities which have mechanical ventilation i usually present a much greater impact to the surrounding area . �. We have concerns with the Noise Level Analysis and Kould . suggpst f that .th'is report be reviewed by a neutral noise consultant hired by the City. The Planning Commission in its approval required that the Nod Air Quality;.se an . Ass_essment Report submitted be' reviewed and approved _9' F �d that all g abutting Property.. , owners"beanotified oflthisehearing. Presuming the City Council approves.. the project, we recommend that the report be submitted to. the Planni t !ng Commission for their review and approval subsequent to review b} ,.he City s noise consultant. JWP :rjKG j r cc: Pat Spencer t' 6766d 3 ' : t ,i TABLE 1 ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 10 00 P.M. NOISE LEVEL N07 N AXMUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED DURATION OF EXCESS E 07RIOR STANDA.RDS ( 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour t 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour r 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time INTERIOR STANDARDS 55 dBA 5 minutesthour 60 dBA 1 rrvnute/hour 65 dBA For any period of time daytime those not to be exceed vcro the period As w�Il be seen later the most restrictive levels arc y p =' strut aerie �11 bcoo n Burin all hours f this day kn level,is 75 dBA. H ' of, P g P ` y ' cluding nighttime hours. ere-m- the Sjjdcal.noisc limit ;Qhg 300 ded for an of time b cgoes 70 dBA. 2.3 Existing Noise Level Measurements Short term come iunity noise Measurements were conducted at two sites adjacent to the existing residences. The sites are depicted in Exhibit 3.The measurements were made with a Gem-ad Noise Meter Model 1933. The system meet` ANSI Type 1 standards, and has current calibration certificati,,n txaceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The results of the measurement series are'aftcmoon hours. a 2. A � were presented m Table 2. All measurements w , made on November 11, 1986"during the late usurtment results are presented in terms of the equivalent noise levels and maximum (Lm ax)'and minimum(Lmin) noise levels. The Lmax level represents the loudest noise level expidenccd. The Lmin levels represent the most quiet noise level experienced. These levels were due traffic noise sources. MGA .NINA.o4t♦nq»a d.' u '+ �- t1'^ .y .r..�r... n t�_.<,1,( !. x.y .....r.. s•n.ur.. ... ' .i ALABAMA AVE ul- f frNr it re_ao Aj ccL 4.5' trj Trf rCO. .. _ � 5-2 0 � ` • .. • is sl�►F �' r t MESTRE' REVE ASSOCIATES' rXh1bz 3 - cOWtxUM Er'cMEERs�.. Naise ' Measuren cnt Locations TABL 2 NOISE IviEASUMVIEN'I'RESULTS SITE Leq Lorin Lmax A 61 53 71 B 58 53 69 The noise levels measured were dominated by traffic noise. lhe Lmax values were caused by loud trucks or cars. It%hould be noted that the Lmax values currently experienced at the ezisti g residential areas are is 70 dBA range. A extrapolation of the Leq measurements indicate the current CNEL noise levels are roughly 60 CNEL. 2.4 Noise Measurerrnents ot'Parking Structure Noise Noise measurements were made of parking lot noise. The, measurements were mzde to determine the noise levels generated by the various activities associated with the parking structure. Traffic as:,c�ciated witk�panl`dang structures is ed scale sufficient such a v the eC to NELccommunitynoise standards th t are based o timeaveraged s r s ever, the instantaneous , and car ass b ss can be a noun to rnearievels by residents.Tire enerated s squeal may car door also b a,' engine robl m dc�ndin on�the; P, a of parking surface.Estimates of the maximum noise levls associated, some kin lot hP P g P,. g ,, activities are presented below,and are based on limited measurements conducted by Niestre Greve Associates (Table 3).The noise levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the'soarce, and are the maximum noise level generated A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. TABLE 3 N1AJIM1UItii NOISE LEVELS GENE:, :ATED BY PARKING LOTS (dBA at 50 Feet) EVENT MAX. NOISE LEVEL Door Slam 60 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 Car pass-by 55 to 70 To confirm the reliab• , ility of the above IevcIs, measurements were made at54 feet from,the , r existing parkins structure at South'Coast Plaza.The measurements for door slanzsning and car start-up ranged from below 55 dBA up to 70'dBA:The upper range'for door slain was fruin a car in the nearest parking space to the noise monitor and was a very v:gorousdoor slam. The lower end of the range was for cars that were farther from the m'easuret.hent location:The car pass-bys were in the range of 55 to 70 dBA with typical values in the low 60:.The louder car pass-bys and engine start-up were generated by vehicles with poor muffler systems. The measurements also confuTned that the attribute of parking lot Noise of most concern are the maximum sound levels generated. The traffic volume within the parking lot was.not high enot,Rh to increase 6e average ambient noise level. The measurements were made from 11:00 a.m, to 12:30 p.nL, typically one of the most busy shopping titres. 2.5 Nose Levels Without Mitigation The maximum noise levels generated by the parking structure and impacting the adjacent residences were assessed. Using a base noise level of 70 dBA at 50 fect, as indicated by the measurement results, maximum noise levels at the firt, second, and third floors of an adjacent. residence were projected. The residence was assumed to be 10 feet from the property L'ne which represents the closest building to the proposed project. The projected maximum noise levels are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 MAC NOISE L. NTI.S (DBA)WrMOUT MITIGATION f Floor Maximum,Noise Level (dBA) First Floor 70.5* Secoaa Floor 70.2 Third Floor 70.2 Does not include effect of proposed 6 font wall at property line. The noise levels projected for the parldng structum ate:lightly above the nighttime Noise Ordinance limit of 70 d8A, and would also appear to be at or O'ghtly, above the maximum noise levels curmntly experienced due to vehicles on Lake Street.while'tne uru-mid ated noise levels are not rx' cessively loud, they do appear to be slightly above the design goal of 70 dBk. Therefore,ad jtioml mitigation measures ant presented below. It should also be noted that the noise levels in terms of,the CNEL Scale will be vary low. Based on the noise measurements ofshilar'parking facilities,projcchians of the noise levels at the in to 55 range.It sh3uld be noted that thus noise level is essnthan that cuerrentlreex experienced du two traffic on1ake Street The traffic noise'on.-14ke Street will be reduced currently widi the proposcm)roject, since the buildings constructed will ace as noise barrier and shield existing residences from the traffic noise. Therefor+c, in terms of tho 04EL scale the noise levels will likely decrease at the existing residences with the proposed project. �i 2.6 Recommended Noise Mitigation Four features are recommended to reduce the parking structure noise impacting the adjacent residential area. Each is presented and discussed below. P12ide_b Foot Wall. The developer has already committed to construction of a 6'foot wall along laic property line between the parking garage and the adjacent residence.The 6 foot wall will interrupt the direct line of sight between the noise source in the garage and the observer which is the first floor residence. Any time the direct line of sight between the source and the observer is interrupted a significant noise reduction will occur. The more the sound has to bend around the noise barriar to reach the receiver, the more the noise will be reduced. The 6 foot wall should b-- constructed as a sound wall. That is, it should be constructed of concrete block or other masonry material so that sufficient mass will be present to prevent sound from passing through the wall. Similarly, the wall should contain no holes or gaps which would also reduce the efficiency of the wall.The sound wall will reduce the noise levels experienced in the fast floor of the existing residential wreas by at least 5 dBA.The second and thud floors (if present) will be able to look over the 6 foot wall and receive no noise reduction. Reduce Rear O eellNg, It is recommended that the opening at the rear of the garage(facing the residents be reduced in size. Currently, it is envisioned to have an opening of 4.5,feet (measured on the vertical). It is recommended that the opening be reduced to 2 feet.Exhibit 4 demonstrates the two,old effect of reducing the opening. (Exhibit 4 illustrates the third floor situation, however, a similar situation occurs for the second floor.) First,it reduces the portion of the garage area that has an uninterrupted line of sight to the nearby residence. Secondly, it increases the length of the shortest direct line of sight distance. The net effect is that it is projected to decrease the maximum sound levels experienced in the secondand third floors by , at least 1.5 dBA. (Reduction of the mar opening does have a minimum adverse effect on the air quality levels, which is discussed in the next section.) is that the notes e�atcdi fn -: o,4de Sotin� ;Forking Material Ste, One of the typical problems with parking garages s i generated r in a very reflective environment. That is, the concrete The result floor� n noised ceiling reflect the isthat the noise heard isdue tto both the autto: ohiles and San a hoound ac used crated. by the reflections off of the hard surfaces. Therefore, it is w ecommended'th.at the ceiling be surfaced with acoustical absorption material.The entire ceili ng does not have to covered; only the first 40 feet of the'ceiling closest to the residential area.The noise reduction achieved by the addition of the absorptive material is projected to be at least 2 dBA. Ilsg,3:Cytuced b i Surfac` • A texture parking surface for the garage is recommended to prevent tare squeal.Smooth finished concrete promotes tare squeal.The use of a slightly rough concrete finish (e.g., broom finish) or an asphalt surface virtually eliminates dre squeal. The combines effects of a levels for all fl ommf�e d noise mitagadons are presented in Table 5.:The maximThe resultant noLee levels will be below'the'' oise standacent ards contained the Noi be less a Qrddi a A. ' ce, Wow the naise`lcvc s5 presented srd is standard le 5 wr]1 be outdoor noise levels. Windows osc levels.The Po Po P , 7 g p`., P pen the'noise levels ex •rienced inside the existing residences will typically be 12 to 15 MA quieter than the outdoor noise levels. Therefore, the resulting indoor noise levels will also' be less,than the value of 55 dBA (for nighttime hours)'identified in the Noise Ordinance for indoor areas. UGA 6. Planned Rear Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ' ; . . . . . . . . . . r«r�.w....rr,w•r..•wrrwr.•w w.r.•w wr•.r.•rrr•••.n•rwr.r•• . . . . . . . ♦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' i�r i.�►.L�' •..•JJ.iJ.(.iii.:ii�..iiLiL.frLLt'�' ..Jr : : : : : SECOND FLOOR: : : : : .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r��r.�.rr+rr.�—.�+•+�-.w-.-••�.r•r..r. rr�rrrrrt.+r.�-��+ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . • . . .. . . . . •FIRST♦ FLOOR . . . PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • : GARAGE • . . . . / PR U�EE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL Sea$(Iwt) I Reduced Rear Opening . . . . ''""~ : : : : : :: . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . , . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.�JJ.iLy44iVb•r••1.V•4•h.�r'••/•J1•/•�.�{{A i.•,ii1•Mi•.bM•� • SECOND FLOOR: : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . -r•r•t:�rrrrrt•rrrrr���.:�t�t�tT�T�T•t-rr-rrrr-r- . • . . • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . FIRST FLOOR . . . PARKING , . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GARAGE . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . rRopt:M EXISTING RESIDENTIAL L1NE NIESTRC GREVE ASSOCIATES QCYATES EXhIblt; �. :.. rat, °:• + � CONSULTING ENGINEBA3 Effect off' Re iuc%aid C)pening TABLE 5 MAXIZI►SUI1+1 NOISE LEVELS (DBA)WITH NEMGATTON Floor Maximum Noise Level(dB A) First Floor 63.5 Second Floor 66.7 Third Floor 66.7 3.0 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3.1 Local Winds ant ze Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominhomanbreCes�At circulation system.Regional wind patterns are dominated by day dme on s he sea.,Wind , night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling tow arilsto t canto s. During the on is altered by local canyons, with wind. tending to flow p p calm transition'penod from one wind pattern to the other, , e dominant south.The direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from there is little stagnation in the winds (less than 2 miles per hour) is 14 percent. Thhourrs,)reThe ical daytime Wind flow is• especially during busy daytime traffic tYP project vicinity, s y ara a and then o pe Pr a ty on•shorc. The onshore wind breeze willop Cthrough us beptakensto In ire that the pollutants into the existing residendal area. Tliere , generated in the garage will be dispersed in a manner so as no hcantlY dude the air quality in the existing residential area which is commonly down 3.2 Existing Air Quality Carbon monoxide is the pollutant of major concern iYl parking garages and along gtrnrnittys. ed Carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant. Unlike ozone, cartton monoxide is y a vane of sources. Tl:e most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For from variety this reason carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indi cative of the the quality rated b a roadway network or parking facility, and arc used as an i al caatrrbroan itt an aide on the local air quality. Comparisons of levels with State and Federal c , standards indicate the severity of the projected c 6hcentrations. The Federal and California ` standards for carbon monoxide are presented.in T.ale 6. 1 TABU:6 FEDERAL AND CALIFORNLA CARBON MONOXIDE- STAi D,B RDS Averaging Time Standard Federal 1 hour 35 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm California 1 hour 20 ppm 8 hours 9 ppir, Tl:e nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQIv1D is in Costa Mesa, approximately 4.5 mules cast of the project site.The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the poeject area. Carbon monoxide (CO) air quality data for 1979 through 1985 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 7. TABLE 7 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE COSTA MESA AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION California Nadonal Maximum Bays State Pollumnt Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1979 21 18 for 8 hour for 8 hour 1980 17 7 1981 15 5 1982 21 2 1983 14 1 1984 13 1 1985 19 5 The number of times each year that the carbon monoxide sUndards ha `y va been'exceeded have steadily decreased over the past several years at the Costa Mesa Station'unta 1985. It is unknown whether die 1985 data represents an upturn in concentrations, ;or severe meteorologica!conditions resulted in higher than usual concentrations. 'l1c txcnd in maximum carbon monoxide concentrations experienced is less clear. A one hour high of 21 ppm has been reached twice in th., last six eats. erage of th , yearly 1 hour maxin►urns,for the last seven years is about 17 pl-,oa.�.arbon monoxide is gencrally consider d to be a local pollutant. e av �• � That is, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from several Jources (most notably motor: r vehicles), and the highest.concentradons experienced are directly adjacent to the: source.°Thc z [�G MGA L VU ft Costa Mesa station is Iocated near Harbor Boulevard, and it is very likely that the carbon monoxide concentrations recorded at this Station are highly influenced by the motor vehicle activity on this roadway. Estimates of the background concentradons were made based on the Costa Mesa monitoring data. The average of the maxiinum,1-hour concentrations over the past 7 years is 17 ppm. A portion of the carbon monoxide levels are attributable to Harbor Boulevard. This roadway is a major arterial roadway with high levels of traffic, especially during peak hours. It was assumed that "a ppm were attributable to Harbor Boulevard and that a maximum of 14 ppm was attributable to ambient sources during worst case conditions.Therefore, 14 prm was added to the worst case meteorological I-hour projections to account for background carbon monoxide levels. 3.3 Projected Downwind Concentrations Concentrations of carbon monoxide that would result because of the parking garage were projected. Thcse are the levels that are anticipated under a worst case scenario; specifically, a very low wind speed, peak hour activity for the gat-t—, and.sigh background levels of carbon monoxide coming from sources other than the garage. A box model was used for the analysis. Data and assumptions usad for the modeling included the following. 1. Idle emissions are at the rate of 2.6179 grams per minute, and ru•a emissions are 38.74 grams per mile. (From the Sout;1 Coast Air Qualitr Management District's "Air Quality Handbook.") 2. Average car idle time is 1 minute. Average drive distance from parking S"ace to exit is 500 feet. 3. During the maximum hcur of use 110 vehicles would arrive or leave. This represents 30 percent of the available parking stalls. 4. A very slow wind speed of 2 miles per hour was assumed. (This is the typical assumption for worst case wind speeds.) 5. A worst case assumption of I4 ppm of carbon monoxide for the background level was used. Th: results of the analysis are presented in Table 8. roncentrations'for 3 cases are presented. A no project case is presented, the parking structure as currently planned, and'the parking structure with the rear opening reduced to 2 feet (as recommended m'the'noise analysis),are assessed. The concentrations presented are for a location at the downwind edge of the parking structure. Little additional dispersion will occur between the parking stricture and the existing residences, and therefore, these levels are representative of what will be experienced at air. existing residences. The concentrations represent peak hour concentrations, TABLE 8 CARBON MONOME CONCENIRATIONS DWCILY DOWNWIND OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE (PPM) Case Concentration`(ppm) No projera 14.0 With Parking Garage As 14,5 Currently Planned With Parking Garage With 15.2 Reduced Rear Opening The parking garage will increase peal: hour carbon monoxide levels :at the existing residences by 4 to 9 percent depending on the size of the rear opening. More importantly, die projected levels will remain well below the State ambient air quality standard of 20 ppm and the Federal standard of 35 ppn,. The results of the parking garage analysis are typical for this type of facility. Single level, oper parking garages seldom result in significant air quality deterioration. In fact, enclosed facilities which have mechanical ventilation usually present a much greater impact to the surrounding area. The amount of air that is passed through an enclosed facility is much less than with an open facility, and therefore, the air that is exhausted has a much higher , concentration of air pollutants. Care must be taken to locate the exhaust air vents away from residences to avoid impacts. MAID ; l�qM. ,{ wrr .i.t.i ffx'" {►:rf��GM -_ _- -� --_ '- - _. _ .... ' '-_ _ --.. ... C .. } i REQUE& FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1 Date .,._-_._..NSlYQt4 r 17+ tc.. ......- Submitie' to: ..Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles ,W. Thompson, City Admini.str Paper. Eby; James W. Palin , Director , Development Services Subject: , APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CO ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 Consistent with Council Policy? r5&es ( j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative'Actions,Attachments:' STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal to Planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional Use permit No. 86-50 , a request to permit a 161 unit planned residential development project with request for special permit . The appeal was filed by Donald Slaven, an adjacent resident and property owner. The appellant contends the project is too intense and may be detrimental to adjacent properties , residents , and working persons . Also of concern are the traffic impacts and noise and fumes associated with the parking garage . The accompanying applications (Coastal Development Permit No, 86-30 and negative Declaration No. 86-51 ) were not appealed . RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 , Planning Commission action on October 21 , 1986 : ON MOTION BY PIERCE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86--30 AND NEGATIVE DECLAR?►TION NO. 86-51 ) WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS r` AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Rowe, Winchellf Pierce, Porter, Mirjahangir , Livengood , Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None , FIND NGS FOR DENSITY BONUS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : r•., - to 1. The capacities of the City and County water , sewer and s rm, drain systems are adequate or will be adequata to-accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as -all other planned land uses in the area . , .y w< l. '^4i1�' +.v.. anLy.\►M } rr!W. wrtM+w'�'1'} } f:r:4 W'.t�hv 11:.K .,y:i'. n: ;1:� t9+J'."'.S/S lti .Fd� alR..•s.,:.. ,,.: .. .. :. ..... .. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact, "on traffic volumes and road capacities , ' school enrollments , and recreational resources. 3 . The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general Flan sacrificed. FINDINGS - FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The proposed development will promote better ,living conditions and environment . 2 . The proposed development utilizes land-planning techniques which include tasteful types of architecture, landscaping , site layout and design . 3 . The proposed development will benefit the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in general and will not be a detriment to or degrade property value in such neighborhood and the City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : I' 1 . Through the use of the special permit, the proposed planned residential development is in compliance with the City ' s development standards for this type of housing and is consistent with the combined zoning on the subject property . 2 . The proposed planned residential project on 7 . 4 acres is proposed to be developed at 25 units per acre per Downtown Specific Plan, 15 units per acre per Oldtown Specific Plan , and a density bonus of 34 units which is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and Oldtown SPecific Plan regulations and General Plan. 3 , The lot size , de th, frontage , street widths , and through: the, : P use of special permit , all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as incompliance with the StatQ Map Act and supplementary o City Subdivision. Ordinance. i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The site plan, floor plans , and elevations received ,and .,dated Octobe r 9, 1986 , and supplemental elevations received and dated I� October 14, 1986 , shall be revised to reflect the following modifications: a . "A units at the southern end of the project shall be two--story. I , b The applicant shall work with the 'Department of Development , . Services to reduce the'°number "of units, from 161 to 159 . RCA l'1/17/86 -2- ( 66026 ) c . Combination of Atlanta resident and guest entries to be .located opposite the propose! Lake Street signalized intersectior-. d . Method of access from guest parking to elevator. e. Turnarounds provided at secured entries . f . Maximum building height of 35 feet from sidewalk grade .` g. Revised garage layout for guest and resident parking . Y 9 p 9 h . Fully mechanically-ventilated, subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade; or, Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and air : I quality consultant which would mitigate potentLal noise and air quality concerns of the adjacent residential area. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission . A public hearing shall be set and abuttinc, property owners shall be notified of such hearing . i . A 6 foot block wall fence will be provided along the entire eastern property line . 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall sutmit the following plans: a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval . Said landscape plan shall include 24 inch box trees along the east property line; trees shall be of a minimum height of 15 feet at time of installation with tree spacing to be determined by the City . Said plan shall also include a landscaped berm along north and south portions of property adjacent to east property line . All existing Canary Island Palms shall be relocated onsite and within the main recreational area . All existina Washingtonia Robusta Palms shall be relocated in conformance with the street tzee plan of Downtown Design Guidelines. b. A preliminary gateway plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the . landscape and irrigation -plan and in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. c . A lighting plan for all on-site lighting shall be submitted . d . Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate' screening o£ all rooftopq p an mechanical a ui mert a shall. delin'eate the type of material proposed to screen saidequipment . RCA. - 11/17/86 -3- `(6602d ) , e . Rodent eradication plan , approved by the Orange Count Vector Control District , f.; Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval . g . A parking management plan to reflect assigned space and Y handicap parking in compliance with State regulations . h . Plans for Recreation Buildings to the Department of Development Services for review and approval . i . A copy of the recorded final map to the Department of Development Services and Public Works. J . The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide 34 units for a 27 . 2% density bonus to be for low and moderate income housing units of which 32 (20% of total units proposed ) shall be used to satisfy the Mello sill frequirements for affordable housing in the coastal areas . The applicant shall provide housing units for persons of low or moderate income subject to the provisions of Government Section 65590 ( d ) . The applicant 's compliance with Section 65590 (d) of the Government Code in terms of amount and location of affordable housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of. Development Services . This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services . " k . A materials pallet indicating final color choices of the building materials and product types along with detail design features and shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for comment with final review and approval by the Planning Commission. 1 . One set of revised site and ,garage plans and elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services . m. Screening plan for exposed p piping in subterranean garage shall be provided . 3 . Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue fr :)m Lake Street/Third Street to. Alabama Street shall be dedicated and constructed as :a 100 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 4 . Lake Street shall be dedicated and constructed ,as a '90 foot primary arterial , highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines : RCA - 11/17/86 4- (6602ci ) 5. Pecan Avenue shall be dedica ted and constructed , o Public Works standards. 6. An easement for 'underground of il'iites in the vacated Lake t, Street alignment shall be maintained , 7 . Parkin be g will prohibited along Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake ; Street . 8. Patterned concrete within the street portion public « right--of--way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guide . 9 . All required landscaping shall be installed on site, not within 14 public right-of-way , and maintained by the 'developer. A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 10. Water mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atlanta Avenue to tie into existing systems . 11 . Storm drain facilities shall be constructed as required by the Department of Public Works. Cross gutters will not be allowed. on Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street , 12 . The access on Lake Street north of Orange Avenue may be limited to right turns in and out depending can traffic conditions. 13. Traffic signals are planned at Lake/Orange and Atlanta/Lake. All necessary conduit for these signals shall be constructed by the developer . 14 . The overhead utilities on Lake Street shall be relocated to the new street alignment . 15 . On-site water system shall be constructed and dedicated per J Public Works require;,rents . 16. on--site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements . 17. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the ordinance Code , Building Division , and Fire Department . , 18. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum oz twenty seven feet ( 271 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 19. Fire_ access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Tire , Department and Department of Development Services . 20 , An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department { installed g { harr be: insta d through the ,complex. This includes parking structure and buildings. RCA - '11/17,186 � _ ( 6602d y -'i ti k_ r ; Aet combination stand pipe system approved by .the Fire Department shall be installed in' all stairways . . 22 . An 'automatic alarm system approved b Y e be installed thzau h y the Fir De par shall tment oot . The system shall include the following features .: a. Water flow and valve tamper detection b. Trouble signal C . Voice communication d . Graphic annunciation e . Manual pulls 23 . Elevators shall be sized 6 ' ©" wide by 4 ' 3" deep to accommodate the use of an ambulance gurney . Elevators shall be provided on all floors including subterranean parking level . 24 . Any proposed trash chute locations and systems shall be approved by the Fire Department . 25 . Fire lanes are to be posted and signed to comply with Fire Department standards . 26. Water supply shall be capable of providing 51000 gallons per minute for fire flow, 27 . Fire extinguishers shall be provided within 75 feet of travel lanes . Type of extinguishers and locations must be in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards . 28 . All security gate locations proposed for installation shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Department and Public Works and shall include a turn-around. 29 . Low volume heads shall be used in all showers . 30. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire r Pipe, and . other Surplus or unusable materials , shalt be disposed 'of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 31 . Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lot and recreation area . A lighting g g plan shall be submitted to Development Services which Illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur . . RCA -- 11/17/86 , 6- ; r( 6b02dj � : 1 32. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall ' be .constructed .in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the CNEL contours:of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist thofssubmittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared p rvision of a person ei.-rienced in `the field 'of acoustical engineering, with the appl -'.cation for a' building permit . 33 . Acoustical material shall be used on the walls and ceilings of the subterranean garage . 34 . An engineering geologist- shall be engaged to submit a ` report indicating the ground surface acceleration from ea.th movement for the subject property . All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the ' g-factor as indicated by the geologist ' s report . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g--factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 35. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed irs at the locations of the clothes dryers . , This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services . 36 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities, port-a-heaters, and central heating units . This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will provide a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services . ANALYSISs APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency and Summerhill Development Company '.- 1122 E. Lincoln Avenue Building 4, Suite 113 Orange , California 92665 APPELLANT: Donald Slaven 225 Alabama Huntington Beach, California 92646 LOCATION: East of Lake Street , between Pecan and Atlanta REQUEST: 161 unit pIinned residential development: =' DISCUSSION: The propose project lies ,in the Oldtown Spec3fic .Plan , District • 2 of thy. adoption 'of Precise Plan of Street ` AlignmenteNo. 84-2rwhich and Downtown S ecific Plan District 6. , The two f i i 11/17/86 --7 ( 6602d ) RCA ,,-. _ established a 'new street configuration of an The Oldtown Specific Plan portion toill contain the residential s structures and parking while 'the Downtown ' Specific Plan portion will be-used as the main recreational area for the project. Since the project is divided into two zoning classifications', _ staff analyzed the project by using the density allowed for each zone . ;The density ratios as required by the Planned Residential Standards do not relate to Oldtown or Downtown Specific Plan properties, Tentative Tract No. 12268 was approved on appeal by the City Council on August 6, . 19851 and is valid until August 6 , 1987. No 'further action is required at this time. As a method to establish guidelines for public improvements, r� elements such as signage, landscaping, and lighting, the Dontown Design Guidelines were adopted by City Council resolution. Architectural elements must be of medi terian nst 1e and in conformance with the guidelines . The proposed development as approved by the Planning Commission is in substantial compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The applicant met several times with various city members to discuss a proposed apartment project . Staff recommended the project be processed as a planned residential development under condominium standards ,.,o that additional open space and parking would be provided . The applicant has indicated a desire to rent the units at this time. The Planning Commission concurred with staf.f 's recommendation to reduce the number of units from 161 to 159 . Based on the General Plan designation, 34 of the units shall be designated for low and moderate income households . Adjacent property owners to the east have voiced concern for privacy and screening for the residential properties . Staff recommends a landscape buffer be created between those properties and the proposed PRD. Staff also met with an adjacent property owner ` regarding fumes and noise that may be generated from the naturally ventilated parking garage . Staff recommended the parking structure` be fully mechanically ventilated and project a maximum of 18 inches above grade at the midpoint , or submittal of a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and acoustical engineer which would mitigate and -` minimize the noise and air quality concerns . The appellant contends the proposed Ill planned residential `development is incompatible with the neighborhood for a number of reasons . He also is concerned with the construction o� the parking garage and with the relocation of the p nes . Staff evaluated . power li these concerns prior to the Planning Commission 's actior, and measures to mitigate these concerns are included as conditions of approval . Access to the PP site has been limited to three oints ; Pecan ( residents only) , Lake (guest only ) , and Atlanta (in alignment with the controller' intersection at Lake) . Costs involved with the relocation of the overhead unlit lines to the new street alignment ' Y will be borne by the utility comp: ivies , RCA - 11/17/66 _8-- (6602d ). . j ,4 ENVIRO11MENThL STATUS The: Planning Commission approved . Negative Declaration' No. 86--51 an't . no further action by the City Council is necessary , t FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 1: Approve ' Conditional Use Permit for a maximum of 1.25 uni,:'s in compliance with the General Plan and based on the applicable . previously cited findings and conditions of approval . ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 2 : Deny the Conditional Use Permit N0. 86-5G based on the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- - CONDITIOIJAL, USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The proposed 161 unit planned resir?enti.al project may have a detrimental effect upon the cjeneral health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2 . The proposed 161 unit planned residential project is too intense a v de e to ne For t nt � he site and not compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood . Site layout , building design and location of the proposed project may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity . 4 . Vehicular access points may create traffic or circulation problems . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Appeal letter received October 31 , 1986 a` 2 . Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 21 , 1986 3 . Staff report dated October 21 , 1986 JSJP: SP: kla RCA .- .11/17/86 --g- 16602dy s� �Il�r.♦r'I j:X;`,f hCi';/���'.��tl ip/L91.`P W+w. w.... _...,.y rVR w+e�•: •. _. _.—.._..��__.. _...._ — _..._.�—._ , w.. ,. u :,ra..;ery�c.twi'.+ezax•: :;x.: ,i.:. a."i.q•i—._ .xdi.:�I,S.'.i . .::». . !' i ih`a?SJTW..��"tk. ..w>2=.1'i ..fY w. _. ....- CITY CLERK CITY or 10-�30-86 IIUNTIR0708 0 V01 c:•, IF. 225 Alabama Mayar Robert Mandic i Huntington; Beach '92648 Council Members, Hun t3ag 1JR4 fl' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. Dear Council Members: On Tuesday, October 21 , 1986 several citizens including riyeel'f attended a Planning Commission Meeting in which Couditiona'L Use Permit No, 86- 50 Summerhill Development Co. and Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach, requested approval of a 161 unit planned residential development as apartment rentals located on the East side of realignment of Lake Street beL•ween Atlaata ancd Pecan, That evening despite several speakers raising key issues about the integrity of this project, the Planning Commission % daeJAed to approve the applicants request. I hereby request an appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision to epprove. r I speak on behalf of neighbors present that night. as well as those who could not attend, yet oppose the high densitiy concept for this long established residential area. I will recount some of the reasons for appealing this decision, o The proposed 161 unit planned residential project is too intense for the site and not compatible. Yrtth i the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. o Site layout., building design and location of the proposed projoct may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity. o The proposed 161 unit project may have a detrimental t {. effect upon the general health. welra a safety and E convenience of persons resiaing or working in the area and may be detr;menta to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. i o Vehicular access points will create additional traffic flow, increased vehicle speeds and severely impact the ; already strained parking situation near this project area. o A proposed underground parking structure to accomraudate E over 350 cars, will allow for hazardous exhaust :'fames to blow directly into my house and other residences;directly in back of the project. Noise generated within this structure would also adversely affect these same properties. o How and where ,the high ,voltage power lines will be , re" routed, and 1 wno will .foot, the cost„ r t enghtl�. delays to allow for Planning Commissionq, &nuy ,., Smaller gro projects than this have e . n �,ven intense sn� and Cit Council review, Whx;ris this g r , . y project being ..e►mxadded - 1,.._ .... i.t�r..{ <.. �.:.�. •: t,� !t ,: `Ti.. , ,te .1" •77j ' . . f ., •�_ ,�i,.c, _ t f ,r.. :c �K ,.t 1. .,. .. ?'/ .., t`_ ., , t. {r„r:., .. '#'l: iLN/2t i a. :� throe h ,.vd,tt out the .sl I B ight'sst ''bit of ,�conscie' atious, .a8pectflr�. ' fe'elkthattne, Oity hasa dttty and nb "'a , environment 1' g ti pr`otact. the prop erty, values :arid"x�e on '.t'o r.l pp ll- bei ne,�ighborhood that surrounds �t '* h 1 • established oltt a lees his p1'64' ed `I b ject- aj �d."t" .seek , intense use for ' thie.'l�d. . • Sincerely. � - r Donald S1 aven i i. r I 4r �t S J w ,+ :,'. -' _ _. . + • , ,__ ,.' -. - - ... ..,•, ,__ 1,.•i Yilit!+1,!ISS:fNT,l4lt'L , (12 The;lPlanni'ng ,Commisai`on zesetves . the righk' to revoke the F. approval Qf ,a "chi`ld " are-'Ifaci11t if a'';violat#on of; the' Y r1 . ., x L•. t:. cond `tions of approval occiiirs . `revocatii proc�.edinge hall be, ;preceded by a =public hearing. ' ' _ c :j ♦;,, ..•.; t... ,.C+i ,cal l y,:� 'C ', ,. A}MOTIU ' WAS MADE BY LIVE NGOOD'� SECOND BY -PIER TO:;AP'PROVE ,CODE.. s AMENDMEN NO. `86-30, AS :AMENDED, AND ',RECOMMENA ADOPTION 'HY':ThE 'C1•TY COUNCIL, Y•' THE FOLGOWING 'VOTE: r AYES: �we, Wi'nchelI Porter, Livengood Pierce , Mirjaha"ngir ABSENT: Er".e N • kf�ne ABSTAIN: Non , MOTION PASSED 'I Cw4 CODE. AMENb NT NO. 86--2? A APPLICANT: . ITY OF HUNTINGT N BEACH :. ;_ This T tem was contin, ed -from the neting 'rof September 16 198b wit I s, , ,.. h • o modi fy 1th` ordinance to :,allow for . secondary entrances intotthe uni s in or• �i to comply with, fire codes for emergency exit require nts-. Cade Amendment No. a6 2? s ein��-'proces'sed, as a result `of Planning section on .J Commission di 3; 1986 A.t that meet.in sta _ ' v exal -,issues' "concern' . ., 9. , could ; be made � an;d ,'i.denti•fi'er3 chars es that presented . sev g . in the cod f econd unit � Addi'tions . Staff,!'*:was directed: to incorporate ne ' tem in �a code amendment`, that ,:of prohibiting the separat exte or entrance to the second unit . ENVIRONMENTAL. STATUS: The proposed pro jec is , categor is ly, exempt from , the p,rovisfons . of the California Env ' onmental Quali Act . THE PUBLIC HEARIN WAS OPENED There was no on present to speak' for r. against the code amendmment and - the public earing 'was closed . He fells tha three ex ressed his o ss-ioner ie , p , pposit on to 66 . code amendment . e current code 'preserves e, integriky aF the, omm neighbOrho0 by restricting the . visibflity of,' a second entrance from the street; and feels that second entrances can be socially beneficial Cammissi felt Liven oad su he ante g pported t nt .of . the code amendment however felt that the amendme'nt , still left too �ny loopholes . PC Minutes 10/21/86 -11- (6522d ) A ;M ON WAS •MADE gA QRTER, SECOND :BY, ,WINCHE ` r °AMEND T;.� NCs: :.86 : ANU. :RECOMMEND AD0PTIQN:"BYyTHECITYPROV ';LCODE, • -THE FOLL ING ' V �� • C AYES: R' NOES W�,nch,el , Por'tcr , Miriaha'ngir ivengo Pierce ABSENT:`' Ecskine AB5TAI None ON'' PASSED C-5 -.CON] ITIONAL USEt PERMIT.' COASTAL IaEVEI,OPMEN'r. .1�ERMIT NHS: • z.51 APPLICANT• SUkM_ER' R1LL DEVELOPMENT NCO. AND REDEVEL OPMENT AGENCY Condi tionaa.4: a ::Permit ;. No: 66-50%Coastal Develo ' z4 :86;',30/Negative Declar'at'ion No . . Pme�t,:.Permxt 86 ' S1 is . a 'concegral .development . ro tia'1 ;;devel . p an for 'a:� 161 uni r planned xes,iden opment:`''. The,=proposed p_ ;ject; lies in the :`.oldtown'�'S er: Specific Plan, Distr P ific Plan Di yet 6, d w strict :.2 an 'Dow' The 'two z.ones,, are ,.a;: result of :.the • y •' adopt one of PreciBe P3 an 'of treet -Alignment No, 84-2�,wtiich established a new street confi uration9of 9 Atlanta/Lake/Orange: The . Oldtown S ecific ' Plan ' port'ion "wall - contain;'the residential ' t ,P structures and parking. whkle the Downkown S' ec be used a P pric Plan 'ortion will P. f s the main recreational area :for the (oject . ., , Since the /project is div ` TM•ided . into ;two, 'zonin analyzed the 'p�rojec.t ' b usin 9 .classificati`ons; staff zone. Y 9 a pro-rata' density -allowed for `each Tentative Tract No 12366 was approved on a on Ku'"9 , appeal by t:he . City CouncIl ust 6 1985, and is valid until ALigust 5, 1987. No, furttier action is required at this time . • ONMENTAL STATUS: the environmental r gusno th lation n eeDePartm nt of be t ;Ffec at khis timeeopmen Services posted�,-'draft Nega,t`ive orewratttennhave ''beenlreceived .days, and. no comments either verb, l . The staff�. in its initiacl :stud the , y of project has recommended ' that a negative de'cla'ratJo'h ':be ..i'ssued prior to any action on 'Condition al Use Permit No: 86- Cevelo ment Permit No . - 50 and Coastal 'development Q� 30, it: is necessar For,, the -Plarini '. ,mmission to review and act on Negative Declaration No . 86w30. COASTAL STATUS: The subject site is an area designated as , "non a r.. all • the area of the Coastal zone, lyIng inland fxomathele' which' is Jurisdiction . appeal s' Y PC Minutes - 10/21/86 d) . (65ZZ_ ^ kl �4�,,i,'i.. 7?_..Ws.k•"`• r .:Y:� .$. h t,�,;,,. r,r,,; ,.r .,+r. -, r4/w..wrwt .,.... .I Staff ,.provided ,additional.,'inform'a ion :Eo the 'Commiasi`on�` explai:ning 1 "r.. y ings ;and the densf'ty for the•.: ro ect�t,,, .I p, j Some additional.`;find 1 ' conditions were also presented. '' , THE: PUBLIC HEARING 'WAS OPENED p Two lette""rs were read ji to�, th�efrrecord.-. r r,r*o po ion One ,lekte i s'if to 'I 'the•;`pio je,ck.; from-•Howard Hi'ghlander,...and, one, letter : supporting:'the project from the Fountein' 'Valley/Huntingt'on Beach Board of Realtors. Ken Skolyan, 121. Alabama, spoke in ; opposition -to s the `proposed pro feet: He `addressed his ,'concer�t8' wh h d: ust .A .., c,..� in cis ) '.exha a "i •:from ': he �ro�ected 389 vehicles �n the::�par.k�ng garage.; since �.`his p .. P y•`� down-wind •of the .ga'rage"= 2 ) .noise, from2;the •automobfaes. s i'ncerthelop�ening to" the ,garage, wi'1l ''act as., a loud ,speak'er , 3) ;�khe relocation of the electric tra.nsmission. lines down : Atlanta Avenuef 4•) high density cf the project•; 5`) preserving the ,value "if his hone. 'Mary ,Skolyan, 121 Alabama, spoke in the to thet,proposed� ., She •' feels 'that the pza jeer 'is being propo ed Fro''"close project i P: P Y g, enhance the surtounding�propert} ,1eand that�the project will beldetrimentaJ. to the quality of life in the area . feelslthan, ,225 ' Alabama , spoke in opposition to • the project , He .. t .'developments such as this one will .drive,:the property owners out of the area . • Robert Wells , President..-of •Summserthill ,-spoke', i'n ,suppo�rt of the project 'and addressed the concerns'' of the ; adjacent pr,perty `'own"ers . fie intends, to -comply with all -of the conditions of. approval: There were., no other::,persons 'present to speak for -or, against the project and the public hearing was closed . An additional, presentation `6ddrelssin'g: the Assues i and `analysis 6f , the project was made by James Palin , Director 'of Development Services . The Coinissioners 'discussed;` the ;concerns and:"-benefits ';of� the project . sohe additional 'conditions° of ' approval ;were: adCtled and revisions made to address the concerns of the ad 'aceht ro 7 P Perry owners , A A&ION..;WAS ' MADE BY PIERCE,-..' SECOND BY,'.MIRJAHANGIR,' TO, APPROVE NDITIONAL , USE• PERMIT' NO. .86.-50,. .,COASTAL ,.DEVELOPMENT -PERMIT.`NO: 86`-130 : AND NEGATIVE,'DECLARATION NO. 86-r51 , ,WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: , AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Porter , Livengood, Erskine , Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: -None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED • PC Minutes - 10/21/86 _13- (6522d ) , FZNpINGS FOR'' DENSITY'rBONUS 'CONDITIONAL USE . PERMIT: NO.. 86-50 _ 4 �. rR {1. !: ,r, '\ +t,• r tt ,!' ; tlJti. ti . ! "• tA�•" ! ty G + ..{.,.t 1✓ ;�.' '< �. :qr. .d'.+,'r :t' r. ::FAY ( - 'sy� l The 'capacit�iles`'`of `the �City;:andL.County water,,r;sewertf and,:Cstorm �rl '. the nroYosed8r, ar'e ',adequatet'or : will 'be ' adequate ` to accommodate p p increase in dena•ity as well ;as rill,",other plannedt. land uses in the area . �: ,,t.t , ! ` `:• * r 'rr1:�;A L •' ,.; j..l / 2, . she -proposed ;fncrease in 'd6fisityr wi11 not, nave .a 'aignifi°cant: 1 „,, .. .. v- t.. .,. adverse,.°impact;", on : traff.ic .volumes ;and :'road capacities, school . e`nrol'lments,' and ' re'creatf ona'1 'resource's . 3* the character of the ,surrounding�,area'- to - not 'adversely, Ampac'ted nor .th'e"overall- intent oaf the', gene.iiral plan sacrificed . FY ,^t ... •Y:• •, G.'�l. J .. . •ice-J "_ .t.l�. •. NDINGS= FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - CONDITIONAL 'USF " PERMIT N0. 86--50: 1 . The proposed development will promote , better , livifig con kions 'and. environment'. r 2. The :proposed development utilizes land planning techniques . { yP r' landscaping•, � site layout and design . which include tasteful t es of architecture, g 3 . The proposed devel-opmen will 'benefit `the general health ,;• welfare, safety"and -convenience of;,the neighborhood ;and,;.the icy in `general and` will 'not'-,'.beL a ;det,riment �to• or degrade property �•value in 'such" neighbortiood and the ; City. FINDINGS FOR -APPROVAL - :CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. '•86�'50: r ! 1 . Through the use:`of ' the' speci pe'r , t p' t 1 mit r �e p osed •planned p c esxdenti`A develo meat „xs ; xn compliance •with ; the: City 's development standards forthis ,typF of housing and is . . i consistent with the combined zoning on the. subjAct ,-property. ' ' ' ' 2 . The .;proposed planned residential r project on T'`4 acres is ,proposed ' to 'be develope'd1' at 25' units , pe'r ,;acre ;per,;.Down to" wn' � , , • =Plan•, a nd15 c Specific Plan; s , onus o4una 'density its whic ` is. consxstent ;with :the ' Dow6iowni Spe&ific h; Plan and Oldtown Specific Plan"-xegulations and General Plan t sxz�, de th f o �� p thg , an&. th p, gh'' the 3 . The oat al. ermit`, all. _,other de'si n `a A em' p � r. ntage�, :street9wxdn"d impl'ementati'on , ; '•' - ' use of ,,specs z features of; the 'propased tsubdivision will. r be 'in',compl'iaoce' with' the standard, 'p'1'ans ;and specifications `on' file with., khe '_'Ci'ty as ' ;well as in ,compliance with, the ..-State Map Act and supplementary' City Subdivision Ordinance. 01 PC 'Minutes -14-- . - ;(6522d ) 6 `30 FINDINGS T,FOR` APPROVAL -'`COASTAL''DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,` NO 8 ,.t: I� _ 1 . The; proposed, plan ed 41reaidential 'de. ;.�e".lopment project t , 1 consistent .with they Cisty !Coastal zone:;suffix;and Ehe Dontown . ifs a y,• is a .-� is .J itlriv ya '�,It L:. Specific Ptah ;.-Standards ao "Ii i1 'as Via'tar iprovisions.;of 1 the Hunti to Qac i o rty= ' and ng n B h •Ordin nce C de , appl.icaible to the':prope J •, he •_plans , ,polr lees'r'�' requirements 'a'nd 'sta . conforms with ,t ' ndar'ds 'of 'the 'City ' s Coastal ',Land` Use Plan . 2. "The'. proposed development can -be. provided "with i'nfrastructiure in a manner that is con$istent- with .'the Coastal .Land Use ''Plan. 3 The proposed development. conformss ' with the public access` and public . recreation policies 'of Chapter 3 `of `diet' California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS `OF `APPROVAL -' CONDXTIONAL USE ' PERMITr��NO'. 86-50 : 1 . Oheose. 9� 1 86 . and su lemenaallele � } L F �;,:•, 5, � tiuns received .and; date' te: lan;'.;.fIo.or tan ' ' d; ct6b r , 9 , pp n vations; received''and:dated oct,ober . 14,- ,1986-, shall be- revised 'to reflect the following j modifications : a . IrAw nits at the southern end of the, project shall be t two`-story. b , The�.��appl2. aOjL shall work . watth the .,Department-�'of `Development " nits from 16l to 159 . Services to reduce the number of u c� located�oonositetfihetaroeosednLake Street entrie;s ,. to' tae Co ,guest ,•::'J, , '' PP. P P signalized intersection . d . Method of access from guest parking to elevator . e . Tu` rnarounds provided at secured entri'es'. u f . Maximum' building height: of 35 feet from sidewalk .grade . r g . ReVised garage. 1; age layout: fvx guest and r•eeident parking . i h . Fully',, mechanically-ventilated, 4u6 erranean garage with maximum projection at 'midp' pint of 18 � inches' above grade; or , . sobniit P . prepared,;by a. mechanical engineer ana air Y, . ' qualit •acQosuLtantwhich would mitigate ' potiential ,roise and r quality :concerns of the 'adjacent ;residential area . , Thi s plan , shall be subject to . the review and approval of abAlpublic e Planning Commission . hearing shall be set and utting property owners shall be n6tified of such hearing. � along entire i. A 6 foot block wall fence will be provided ale the e e eastern property line . Pc . Minutes - 10/21/86 15 2d ) •A 2. Prior. .to;' issuance ;'f build Yng permits the applicant '84 11 �{ ` Submit the following plane; : ►�, Landaca e. 'and `irri' "ati .t• p a. p .. g on `plan• to, .th a De artme" t of •� Development .services ands Public Works for --review _'ana. approval . ¢. Said landscape-;:pl`an shall tncl"itde-24 y nch 'box .' treesalong the eas t prQpet ty„`line': �, trees �s all r be .of a , . , minjimum; Height sof,wl5 feet, at time of in'sfa Ili ti'n kwit e e e h � r include a landsca�eediberrmbaloii'e""north 'And'' southn`o' rtio s"of p g Y ;ro er t ad ac P 9„ QortYons �°of � P P y ent to - east property line . r Alal== existing •Canary Island Palms `shall be `telocated. 'orisit® and :7,wi,thin the main recreational ''a'rea` , All existing ngtonia Robusta Palms shall be relocdted fn . . hlashi i ,: conformance with the street tree plan of Downtown.'Design Guidelines . b A preliminary� ,gateway ;plan shallr'be submitted in. ` cori junction with. the landscape and' irrigation 'plan and, in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines . c•. A lighting in sha-11 ' be subm3tte' g g plan for all on-site 1�ght g d . d . Rooftop Mechan .ca •. ndicate ' screenfn� ofua'llero`oflan . . Said, plan ,shall,: . g top-;•64chiiiiCal equi'pmen,. and . shall '`delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. ? e Rodent eradication plan, approved by the-'Orange County Vector control District. f . Grading and Dcainage Plan to the Department of Public Wor � ks For review and approval: g p rking management plan to refl'ect 'assigne'd- spaceI-"and handicap parking in compliance with State regulations., h . Plans for:, euildinDepartment, ' gs to the-. of Development Services f6r review and approval . i . A copy of . the recorded., final map ..�o. the Department of Development Services and Public Works. e. a lice ,. • zh PP . °, an' agreement to provide 34 units for, an27s2% density bonus to 'b'e for••lrow and moderate Y income housing units of which 32 ' (20% OU to"taI ,units proposed ). shall he . used to satisfy the Mello Rill requirements for affordable housing in the coastal areas , PC Minutes `.- 10/21/86 -1E- ( 6522d ) i '3' - ✓"MI •f` lti - }rM1 ? .,,.'Y,' The applicant ,shall ,provide, housings units�jfor -persons of` lowK; ora moderate ,�tncome =s'u ectt�to then royieioneof,,, ,;�; Go�iernment ;Section _'6559U(i3}� . IThe ;applicant 's' compliance. with Section .;65590,(d) °of ',the, Government Code in xter location:.of ;affor`dAble ; d� amount :ands` .housing provide ihall be subject`1..to'. ttie : irev ew,;and appr.oval 'of. the, Department of 'Development ' Services . ..,..r 4 r -.+ Tidsr`agreement.'r''shall be reviewed, by .ttie 'City Attorneys as-to "`fo'rm an content and approved "'by th'e Director of Develo ment Servic p ea. ' mat'er als �p;a116t.'ind cat�ng���final ., color; •choices of �tkhe bui1ding`: materials: and'' ' roauct t •es �.`alon �trith:'detail design:. and sha11 lie,. submitted" to�the Design`.le'vie' Hoard ' for ' 'do mment ''with -Final rev-iew, and approval by the Planning Commission . 1 . One set of revised 'site a'rid garage plans '.and ~elevations .sfor. review and approval by the Director of `Development Services. P P g; p,lan,.' for exposed i ing �n �sub� . , 't m. ` screenin ' �' ' erranean garage shall be provided. !2 3. Orange Aven ue/Atlanta..Avenbe from Lake ,Street/Thicd!`Street Ito Alabama ,`Street ahall, be dedicated .and 'const'rtcted as:'a 00,.`foo't primary arterial highway o Public Works 'standards and :subject , to the Downtown: besign Guidelines. Lake. Street shall be dedi ,ated and constructed "a 9 fo-ot y arterial highway to Publi' Works: standards and subject ' to the ` Downtown Design Guidelines . f 5 . Pecan; Avenue shall be dedicated, and constructed -to Public, Works standards. , for , under" r' t. � � .es in the vacated ' Lake 6 . An easement,,,• ound util�iit` Street alignment shall be maintained. 7. Parking will be prohibited along orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake , Street . 8 . Patterned concrete within the street portion �'pub lc right-of-way shall be limited to.. 16''tions and design established in the Downtown Design Guide 9 . All required landscaping shell be . instah'led on site, not within ublic right=of-way, and maintained by the developer .'' A. P � P detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be. submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines • ns b ucted in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street Q . and eorange/AtlantaAvenue to tie into existing systems . PC, Minutes t - rt r w •;.i ♦ ,1 � j "'1 tY "''g•. I ��y�r�4< ...�w�`tS ♦ ^ ^M ,}"a ]1 . Storm`tdreain,{faicilitigtaha�l-' be{. onstructed:� 4�:requi,red b `;the Department -ott?Public'-Works. L =;Croi�e�ouredwl11 "not :�be 'al oweTd E� "on Orange%�►tlanta; {►venue a�.. ,sake"'Skreet'_ s Qt }( �' • '1', - '�t7 C1(ff/fit l',•. 7,i� r" r'1.; 1+FY1 ,i { Ytf • . '1 i1,1i J i1 `'`t� t ��t ♦. ' ' :��,t. �Y, {M�.t� Pt ..f �, s ,. zK+ �q;+ •3 4 �,I,.t'7.,Fi',• "+rti=+'S:�•,'.'; t.stY'.:r,+� lZ. ;access*:on :L•ake. street' `northz otr,brdnge' `lwenuetmay` beted to right;-tu_'ne in` acrid �oii't; depending' ort traffic' conditions : ' 1 n Af( L ,., t Y it••,' `rir 1, fa J .Tr�€�i'c,•, ifs.,f! ��.� ,� t • i5 ! •.;,. :', J.1f'r f .:f,r fi,e.;' ,,.;., ,:• •` s gnats are planned , at Lake/Orange 'and �►tlantahake. -necessary . conduit for `tYieBe'''signals 'shall :be. don'sructe'd Eby ` the developer . 14 0 . The overhe i`d ut 'lii es on Lake SEre€t,. shall 'be zelocaited to 'the new street alignment. 15 . on=site. water syst`ejm sh'al'1 be con'structe8' and dedicated ,per Pulilic.;Works requirements . 16 . On=site sewer system shall be private, ; but is subject �.to.. Publ'ic Works requirements, , T e 'devel`ome 't all co ;w t all a 1` cable r rovisi'ans of 17 h p 1 n sh mply t h e PP i t' De 'artment the ordinance Code, Building 'Division, and ' Fire p 18 . Driveway approaches shall 'be a minimum of twenty=sevein .. Feet. t (27' ) - in width . and ' shall . be of . radius type 'coristxuction. ` ' 190 Fire access, shal] ; ber provided: t`o . the sans€action, of �ttiye Fize Department and DepartmEnt ' 'of nevelopment ``Servi des . 2�. An `automatic sp'rinkier. sy",stem approved by the Fire Depatrtment shall be , instal]ed throughout ; the `complex. This. include$ parking structure and bu11di'no, s, �x 21. A wet combination.'stand pipe. system,` approved by she Fire Department shall� be installed in all stairways . 22. An automat • ,Y PP„ Y P tment shal'1 Pe installed a is larmga stem 'a roved b ' he Fire�,De arse, throw hour. The s stem shall include t 5, following fe,atutes: a . Water flow 'endvalve tamper detec tion S b. Trouble signal c, voice communication d. Graphic' annunciation e . Manual pulls 23. Elevators shall be sized 6 ' � 8" wide by 4' 3' deep ,to accommodate the use of an ambulance 'gurney . • Elevat'ors, shall ' be provided .on all floors including subterranean parkfng level , � PC Minutest 1.0/21/86 l g (65122d ) 24. Anproposed ,,trash ' ch4te locations and systems ehal.l ` be1 . ' approveQ by the Eire Dcparkmenr . -25 . Fire lanes a're'�.to be Epouted ,and signed' to`'com`p1y :with Fire `< nepartment akandards , 26 • minute$forlf a of providing 5;`000 gallons per,, shall.'be capabl ire flow 27 Fire ext`inguishers shall "be provided, within 75 teet of travel aches . Type ,of extinguishers .and `locations must''be iri lac r.dance with Ru'nt'ington Beach Fire Code standards. it dat locat 4J, 'ions n a la o. sh 28 . All'. recur e Y. , ._ , proposed 'f t, a or i s• 1 t�. 'n 11 be ; sub je6t;:to review ,and approval; by., the ;Fire -Departmet t and Public works and shall include a turnaround. I 29 . tow volume 'heads Shall -be used in all showers . 30 . All 'building spoils; such as unused iumber , wire, , pipe, 'and other , surplus or ;unusable mate�rial.s ,�' shall be 'disposed of at ' an offsite facility equipped to handle Lhem . '31 . Energy efficient lighting, such as high p e su a :sod vapor. lamps; -,shall'; be. used ,,-in: parking lot and ,recre�.tion area . A Ugt ting plan, shall., be submitted .to, Development 'Services; whicP_ ' illustrates that 'spillage onto- adjacent, properties will nvt occur . vi e , 32 All : st uctures on the sub act ro a wt,et a atta . ed ,,o detached, shall ,.be cons tructea in compliance- wf th the , State acoustical. standards set fo th for . units that lle wi°thi6 the CNEL , contIours..;of ,;,the property .;, >,:Evidence '' 'f :compliance shall ;: co`r.sist ' of submi tta,l of , an `acoustical analysis report, prepared under the lsengineering,pervisiof ethenaexlerienced in the''field -of acoustic. P l pp cation For a building permit . 33. A`coustical material shall be 'used on the' 'walls and ceilings of the subterranean garage. An engineering .geologist shall be° en a ed to 'submit a report ,. 34 . ' ..9 9 indicating; the ground surface acceleration from earth movement develo ment,shall be constructed in ,, com l is this .for the subject, property. All structures within p _ p ncQ. .with., the g--factor, as indicated-.by, the geologist ' s report. Calculations for footings and, structural members to withstand anticipated . issuance of building ato the City for review prior 'to g- ctors shall 'be submitte i 9 35. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers . This requirement may' 'be waived provided, that the applicant , will install a 'more .energy c efficient alternative subject to the review and .opproval of 'the Department of Development .Services . PC ' Minutes 10/21/86 -1.9- ( 6527.d ) t : • 'i 36. N/ tu`.alr` as shall . be {atubbTed fn `at ,the:, lacati'on to`fr cook'i`n� r.' NA z h. .9 fac�f"litiea`, ' po'r t=a-heaters; ng `d entr 1 requirement,-may be waive'i9 ' +rovide�d that'. tiiQ a'p licant wit] a r' provide .a , more. energy,, effici'eink talte:;native :su e ` tv the revi4w;, a' ° .a ._ Pproval of' the Department ` ,vf 'Develripment ' Services. Vv C CONDITIONAJL `USE PERMIT NO 86-48 `AND``CONDITIONkL EXCE IO PPLICANT. . LEONAR , D AND RUTH QUEBRAL ,,• `�' Condi,ti' al FUNe Permit . No. 86 48 is a,, request to le a1`ize' an existi ng . ecand unit addition t,«ah{{{a�4;was Constructe t�without cod t v i ,, n i i'on use, pexrriit aocated, at ,9972 ilver S! and i e':S Dr 'S nce one,''bedroQm: nd ` 650 � s uare `feet Coit:�addit'i�on�s,.'specify .,a•`max3mum ;of the code „r uirementsttor second un , being request d since theunit has �threeobal xception _No:: 86 72 is , earooms and`totals `-1,532 square feet A �' i1ding perm was issued on., August ,; 1983, •for a `twok story additio to ' the' Strand_ Drive to . inilM'd e93tbedrooms Nu l , lebath on 1theesecond7rlaor; and .a :family room w th:. wet bart :and ' naryy room :`on=�i�e.:,�first: fSaor . Since that `time a fu ' ;kitchen wa's 2nstalled and the 'unit, ha3' been rented out . ,. .. .. , E,'I,n �respo e . to cot�pl i•nt$ ;�receive'd ;.-•code. enforcement staff inspectredY the 'Or' ises;-on..* eptembex..': 4, 1986, .and advised , rh�e ow _ " "n irt'ion use permit or bring' the structure inner 1.0. apply for a �co fto conformance with the ord'hance code . ; e , , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The ro osed ro/Pn c to ' ica1:1 exem t. Cla'ss l "from 'the P , p , P 9 Y P provisions "of tt nia E ironmental Quality 'Act. THE PUBLIC HEARIPENED Magc,. '.. •.. .. ' . of He sta the . �helica lsahaveSsenta sreatdthe Grano,vitz , .hest PP p 9 asked to on thiair end atj ia�ble tibb and eamountemo ento rebuil'd . furiher ngp erstated that nothbeen changed or dded since the., original permits were gr nted. , , 1`ver .Strand Drive, spot inr o ian .Moore 932 Sikhat the applicant is ren in o°t,ition to the ,Br p. re " • qu..at . He stated. PP . _ 9 u. ' zooms 'to b The , causing a traffic problem'" 'i the existing neighborh0 . is located on a cul,'de- c and with th several peo a an caul e . additionaVcars from the rentals there are ver w y parkitn'g spaces,., . left for he other residents in the neighborhood , He further stated that an,/illegal kitchen has been added to the exist no res.i�dence, A letter was read` int'o the record from -J ulie a Carma;�, 914, sil.v'ee + Strand, supporting the request. Sr�enXistingtstructure oz 'no sparking problems or noise 'problems from the- _ occupants . PC minutes - 1o/21/86 _20 (6522d )` „. . titoi� b�sch d+w�iom�►nt strvi+ce ,. dp�ir,tri��nt ' SE ff r r ' rRE P'OR TC�: Plann 'ng Co nmieaion 'FROM: Development Services DATEr October 21 , 1986 , a. ,.. _. ' L ._ JAY 1.1:5��.'�:i.=.;” r t. i�.: 4['<.1,A; i: "R • : (. 'R'�',+# ',;, i I..'.a t r , J •; .•,,#,Yt SUBJECT-" 'CONDITIONAL', USE PERMIT NO 8675 COASTAL-'DEVELOPMENT :.,. _>. PERMIT," NO. :786 : 30/NEGATIVE DECL A -; .. _ • ����TxoN iao . 86-51 , APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency sand DATE,-, ACCEPTED• , • :Summery ill ,''Development Co October 7; 1 86 1122 E. Lincoln At•enue . �r � �`��„� , Building: 4, ' Suite 113 MANDATORY�'PRGCESSING '•DATE: Orange; CA -92665 Decem er REUEST: 161 :unit , planned ZONE: Oldtown Specific , ides tial development Pl ar.- --CZ aid;'D.�wntown :$ i • Spec'ific Plan-6 LOCATION: East of et � Lake Stre♦ '.. :.� u?: eYf i� iYSIh .•'�'i,J sl 1 ' w,i between Pecan acid Atlanta GENERAL .PLAN: -Me D ns ty Res ie: `r e nt i/ ACREAGE: 7. 4 dross acres Office Residential ��-- EXISTING USE: Vacant y 1 . 0 - SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional UsE'� Permit,,No♦ ' '56-50, LoasEal 'DPvelopment :Permit � g ration: No '86-51basQa on the .findinge No . 85-3U and Ne ative Decla t and conditions of approval ` outl#.ned in kris report. 2: 0 GENERAL INFOI�MATIQN. , Submf.tEed, foz. Planning Cat;timssion xeview and acti.an iei a conc ;p4:ua1 ` ritial deveio m ' 1r ., .• ,ib �n,L r i �evel'o ment lan..-for a , 161 4 it laRne�.. "" aside p ..-. ' P t .. P.. w .. , � P e. -proposed pro.ect Iie's in the �Oldtown Specific ,.Plan . District '. 21 and,.'. specific Plan . District 6. The'' two zones: ,are `'a , result cfd, ecise Plan of Street Alignment No. ,84 . 2 `wh3.'ch an ,he, adoptri.on of Pr . tablished a . new, str .,. f F-., The, c.s set configuration, of, Atlanta Lakel Ocande n portion ' will contain ,: the ,zesidenkial •. structureaeanniparking while,,the Downtown Gpec�.•fic Plan `portion will be used as Lhe main rpereat��onal area for . the pro e'cst.'` , Sih'ce the project is Mv.ided into two zcnic lassifications,`, at'afF ,c analyxed the project by ii.sing the density allowed for each zone , since hhe density ratios as required, by the Planned ' ResidenEia' I Standards do not relate to Oldtown or Downtown Spe ifi`c Plan r properties. 77v-+++r:— 1 r;:• .. i.e«,.axe.'+p+rr.lr '(.Min.yrr'.:... ,. •a..t+w+.eti+lv.,.•.....7+r"i f.•.,w....a ... ---- ----- WI / \� i 1. • '.� • ';1 , , •• - - Tentative •Tract No. 12268 was•';approved on appeal b , ►the City Co uncil t on .August 6, 1985, : and:: is;' valid until rAuyust ; 6, li) 7 No further," action Is,-required at, this 'time .' f 3-:0 SURROUNDI - S w S: NG LAND USE, Z ONING :`AND GENERAL PLAN •'DESIGNATION Subject " Propert`y: `GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mediums Density Resid ihU.a`l�OfFice �;. Resii*dental1'Yi t ZONE: '01'i�tc��tn` ,Specifc Plan-2° CZ and ,Downtown Specific i . LAND USE: ' Vacant . and'•`'single family , Nortti of Siibje'ct., Pr02ertx. , ..PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium,-Density .Residential'/Of f iceGENE} RAL Residential 4I ZQriE: Oldtown Specific Plan'-2--CZ and Downtown Speai•fic `Plan=6, LAND USH: ,; . Single far. ily and aParkmL'J.nts Ea, st of ..Su'bJ66t�Pro_perty: �. GENERAL; PLAN "DESIG 1A.LION: Medium Density Residential ONE: town ci i F n '2= ,' 41d Sp f c. 5 s LAND ' USE, Apa.:-.nents , single fa mily and vacant t, sough of `Subject rEj. GENERAL � PL.AN, DESIGNATION1: Office Res idential•. .:,,; ZONE: ' Downtown Specific Plan-Ba .AND USA: Vacant an"d oi-I o• er"at:�tons L p West 'of .Sub `ect Pro ert Y 7 _._._...P...`Y• GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Off ice :Rearc3enti°al Q • ZONE: ,. Dow Speci is Plan 5;6 c> • Residential. and •`co i i 1 �,AN17 USE, mmet�c a F ` 4•. 0- ,'ENVIRONMENTAL •'STATUS:' ' : Pursuant' t the nvl al ie ula 7 .�• • o , e 3ronment g tions,'in; effect at •this time, ► . the . Depairtment of; Development 5Prvices!',�pc+sted'`draft,- Nega'tive a ' ' a De'cla�'ation No . 8651 far tent days an n c ►, r 1 .�• 'a o• mE'n:tk• neither, ve k�,a , or! written have been received The staff, in 'i a i{nit+ yo'`�stu .f .• , the proje4t , has, recommeaded b th3 a egat•ive• derlar�ation�i� e ; � ` ' "'any ,act'ic on `C Prior to n . and ai Use 5 ition Permit °No. 86 0 and�.co� stal '� i P. . . ' t No . A6;=30, ;it is. necessary;,for the ,,PlAnn`ing Commiss#.on tt.oerevier� and act ."on` :Ne g -3Q ative Dec No. 86 - Staff Report •- 1.0/21/86 , t ( 2- 9 yd 5'0 :COASTAL. �+T 1 i , • ♦7 AKl U 5 , ',,The Ci t • � yr,of, Huntington :Heath ;Local Coaatal�SProgram :hasa:been f •'� .ceft� ified4 by it ,a C$ tal c;o 'A a X nd. 1'ifarnia ;Goes mmisson � Co stal ,;{ r. ny De;yelopr�ent Per;n3t. CDP is1 requi ed for`:a development .witrhin the' 'coasta,l zone' which is ;not exempt r 'v • l lr l i,r 3�r � C , r�:�;? ;n' 'L1,5�ir 1. it i �. b , !r, t x. � . , .-,."non:,raPpeal'able{ which is ' . The eub ec sito is �an area'� dPsig�ated as all<;the7area o t f hO*' coastal l zone, lyi,ng ,:xnlaria,-,fromthe z4ppeal R �Ura`sdictior , P=ojects , locafea'•outsi;de'•;•the 'appeal , uriedict'ion _ �. •.� a,3ah l require coastal ; development' approval 'from, 'the City ..atid 'these are not appealable ;to the; Coasta 1 , Commisa ion . ' +;t4r,.• ..f .: � n% ll t ::f 1 � ,a'r 1 '.1` ,•.il', 4�+ . ,,•{ The Plann .�;�mf'E ing; Comsian= may .approve to conditionally`:'a nrov the 1 Coastal +Development Peirm t •after •makin"g the •follawing� ,.,y.� ings . fa) LIUP., That the 'developme`nt pro jest propore� by t hie` OP ' application ' conforms, with ' the plans , 'policies; ; requirements and ' standards of the C-LUPt r.'+L,+r`j ttr1 Y.':i .rii" ' ..r �i°. :'r, r •'S. t , r•i,F ` ..,•4.b 1. . {b ) Zonin Re ulations, That theCDP application �'i's,,con`sistent t: J,t a yspecif c plan as; well � as •oEher`, 'provisions of ',the . t Huntington, •Beach 'Ordinance diode applicable _ta the ' property (c ) ,That 'a't the 'time `of 'occupancy, the proposed {4 development .can e provided . with infrastructure in ' a manner' that is' consistent with C==LUP ,. • �n' (d ) Ca�l�iforni'a''Coas�tal:.�•Act: Tha'� the development , conforms � with- the �► u b c. a s • P. oce s and pu is recreation 'polic�.es of Chapter 3 'of the California Coastal Act. 6`:0 'P.EDEVELOPMENT STAT US.. t <s The applicant has been negotiating, with thte., rede'velo�iment staff ; to° arrive at a ;deve to me-nt.�;agreement. which Noald' add'ress the City!s participation withP°respe`ct ; to ;toff-site ',,improvements {utility relocations street improvements) . At this ' time, closure 'on the negotiations `has not been reached. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: A ,ports 6h o'f ?the '-ai`te is within,-,th6 Downtown 5peczfic Pl'sn and a portion:;zoned; Oldtown Sp' eci.flc' Plan; Aistx`ict `. 2 . As�f.a 'method: to' establish guidelines for ;publia imprbvementE ' elementa, such:` as signagE, ; landscapinq , and ,lighting; the Downt'own' Design Guidelines ' were adopted by :'City council resolution. Architectural elements 'Y � . must; •be of a mediter,ranean st� 1 . and `in conformance , wi th ' the':: uidelines. Staff has • rioted that t will: r�qu�r,e ;the: developer to`. install cont' oraraystree9' sect tih" ' F Y. t 1`i`ghting portion ofethe' project .� install ' a median ,'along Lake . southeastern _ ..` ' c,ondary,:gatewa wlih ,.ai ha' e ,•at the,'m ` .. ke, Street, .instal�. an' 3'nt:er`s'eetion, 'enhancement at rake ,and Atlanta, and. plant Waslurigtonia •xobusta '( Mexican Fan Palm') along Lake and Atlanta . tf Staff Report. 10j21J$6 �y�9L,if.,►i1".IFFY"R1�3'C7C7,+tO.w+.r++v.a.++awvwr w.u.w...r► w:.,•.5 -+.-r...,..... ;1wrr�-T--R'—rnw. —`�- , Aa 80 'SUBDIVISION COM��ITTEE� t i r' I , i. t ti • r, f, Jr'hA 5. 1 , QnRMay , 30 1965 ,: the'- Subdivision ConmititEe:' met to ; re,vew Tentati.ye ., ►� ;TYacts 0 2 5 i i h _ m con3uncti on� w t a "p`re roue' i xed '`rase �. , +,. development. ` A1l items Hof ,conc P` sern ':relat3ng to the tract ma wer i.ftliided,`,as conditions of approval . of ; Tentative ,.Tract'°No 12 268 'a's `! " i C an 6 1985 ebye sappxoved;`: n :•map and coadi tioris f approval . a"ie 'Attached he"rewith` T y 9 '0 zSSUES� AND ANALYSIS: ' R`he following is 'a statistical` analysis of : th'e ' site . ; Gross Area Net •Az'ea oldtowri Specific Plan 6 .13 acres 4 . 29 acres., Downtown Specifit Plan-6 1.27 :G6 Total 7 .4 acres A . 9 acres SECTION ISSUE REQUIRED ::PROPOSED, `,: 9130: 1 (c) ` Uses Permitted Planned Residential P1'anned Resi 'b CUP dent ial"by `CUP Y S.,93 30 . 3 (a ) Density (OTSP) 1/2000 'gr . sq. ft. ," u - 133 . 5 161, a :COmbi=n at:_ 21 :8 ,units/ ' 4 : 8 , 03 Density ( DTSP) 25 unitsJacre ,gross acres - 3245, 9130 : 3 (b) Flooz' gyres Ratio 1 sq . :ft. ,area 14td,,69?� ,sq':ft . -1 .sq 'ft . net residential lot area ;_ 211,449 rec . b'uild�:ri s •:`f t . `unkn q own g 01'an` :Check,,P6r)�A' t 'cl'e ^'915 1 j. Planned Residential Devela2ments ' .. 9150 . 4 Mar. . .-Density *368 283 Bedrooms ` 9150.,5" "Maximum Site 50$�106 722 sq:ft 63 " 523 5 sq _"i't Coverage 9150."6 Maximum Height 35 'ft'.' 35 it 9150 :7-8 Setbacks from '20 feet 2U, foot to SEr@@t ' balconies.... 9150 . 4 Setback--interior ID feet 18 ' *R3 standards within "PRD used based on proposed' density Staf f Repot t - 10/21/8 6 (6449ci ) , .�CTIQN• ISGUE REQUIRED: ; S PROPOSED S , 9150. 10 Building Separation : , ; ont to" froht 35` feet:a fr Z2` feet 12 ide!'to aideakar fA , feet' 2' 15 fe•et 3 'story side to front 20 'feet 15 feet.' sfde,;'to rear- 20 feet 1 15. 'feet' ' rear ft,to'7�rear� 25 If ' building to drives 5 feet 0 *9r150 12 BUilding 'Buik 6 ' units side, by side `Varies . bui'�.ding-�dffsek� i 4 feet ok:. %s ,building' ht . . 'offaet 1/3 2' sooty 'in 0=1 , unit .l each, bldg . in each bld' *915{0 ` ut -notPer un �.13 0p,en s dce- common ft,95,60 ' sq. W/20 `"ft'.° min . Open :space private patio 200=250 : eq. f t . private balcony 60�120 sq ft : 116 156 sq . ft,. 9f50 : Main Rec. Area 10, 000 `sq. .`f t. :; 20i 00t sq ft w/avy �:l00` ft�, dim:' needs; 2 ameni`ties pool ,, .Spay and r : . rec:� blc3g. .. , clubhouse 1127 eldbhouse, size �.... sq. ft. unknown 9150.15 Minimum Floor Area,. '1 bedroom =•.650 ?1Z + 123 2 bedroom = 900 ' 956; , 915 0. 16. Private Accessways 24 f t . 'wide not- 'dimensioned I 9150 . 17 Park,'ing one bdzm. 39 @ 1 .5'. 58;5 two bdrm. 120 @ 2 _ 244. . -JOJ guest Tonal • 5 . ,'' 38.35 M 71 .• 2 `compact,,�� 305 standard y 9150 . 19 Miscellaneaus 100 cu . ft , unable to outside storage verify size trash areas within- 200 ft,. ,. 'within garage * Special Permit within R3 standards PRD used based on** � proposed dens#'ty , Staff Report 10/21/86 -5- t6499dy The alalicant met several ,tixme's � with ,various, 'City' mea�hers to= discuss a proposed apartment project:: , Sta'ff strongly, 'r'ecommehdea th'e -7 �•� Project en s ac,e and"�' ark`ing would• be_ . rovivelopnient sos:fthat �roject be rocessed as. a' .planned residential ,de addi�tio P p. P. .. p deb. The applIcant ' has indicated a- desire- to rent the units ,•,however staff does not know for what er; od. af, ,t� P. time-'. Filing requirements. for ar'planned . resi dent`idl ;development, include submittal. of a entative ,:tract , map. A`.valid., map,:ex'i:ats on th'e sub ject'.,:proper ty r therefore,. no , t recor q n ap rtew- fil ing was: `re" 'nested. Th e will • expire August 51 1986 if. no ded or extended prior to that dike . 'Four requests for special permits;,are .necessary (bUildin gise , ' Buildinl�se arationgandbu 'lden in spa ulk numbermofcun%tsks'i'd�:�b'.` side ) not 'ap ear to .be detrimentalgto the-C � ro ec , Y ..do, PP ana xrre 'ularprope`raies in the the .buildin . • g, , , '.alig ' . vica:nity due ,to ent Also , a'll thy. living a do. nd,' a ' areas,-are �opposite., the unit entrances •and ` � all separated by35,.feet . Staff doerecommend that building bulk ( y q h, building' ati-,two story, height) be (one-third of the units �,n sac : " " ` ,'po'rt1,9p to, be,, reduced to two story . his will bring the lg overall required at, rovi'ded. b re uxrxng all ' A units alon . the east two ,:story to:. 16 :provided. This, conce_ pt*':utilizess the+,additiaIn'al optional building, and reduces _the u optional .. . . Y � y. A redesign the walkway system�mat 'be necessar total y. 1Th6 lest units .. . special ; 'peimit request to allow compact` parking is :acceptable' ,pr6vi'ded the spaces are clearly designated "compact " and• striped s feet x ,19 feet. Adjacent, ',y .and .;,.; ent,:' property ,owhers lave 'voiced, •concern for-',pi screening for the 'residential :•properties to the east. Staff recommends a landscape buffer be created. Four entrances are posed as .•access into projec Pro t , .. the � •t . Tway of the driveways lead -to a subterranean guest parking' ga rage . physi,cally separated from the. adjacent resident parking area . The applicant . has not proposed a method' b which the - guests,;will gain access to the elevators or stairs . staff also believes tfie. .four. ,access pints P are excessive . An ' alternative .'resident drive which '.utilizes ,the Street guest drive is shown on the '. `..`... 'Lake parking layout.,, .; The... common of this driveway 'will eliminate the need for . two driveways on 'Atlanta . Public Works recommends the two Atlanta entrances be combined and be located ' opposite the proposed Lake Street signalized e. intersection. The : Fire Department haa', expressed concern`with access to -,the ` units . Two options are available : install a 29 f oat'_'wi,de Ifire ,.accessway Ion the east side of the p cess : within property or , rovide 29 foot wide ac unobstructed from. Lake 'on 'Atlanta with roadways which providetadequateuturnaraund The 'applicant is working with the ' Fire Department to resolve the concern and provide reasonable 'ftre access ''Staff Report 10/21/86 --6- (6449d ) -(f - t ; h - J ro err t Ire Ar,af n ' fumes iand noise Staff as .met with an ad acent `p P Y 9 9• turally ventilated ,par C'ing'-garage. r m h „ St' f i drom the: Y._ . 5 Ana t�_ a r `n " c`om ends t ei parking structure,, be fully' tha be� enerate Y `nd e co curs }. Knee*hunicall w ntilated and prp�ect a maximum' of .'18 ' in'cties ' above sr grade at,.;the` midpoint 10 : 0 , RECOMMENDATION: a .. - <<f�7 t .i.j kr�, pa y•, r.•�«J k, 4 •n4'� .: t« r.M ,+ •;•'' 1 }`1 'i tr' Staff recommends"'the 'PIAnning;.Commisslon :approve °Condittohal:,� Use , rmt } 50; a 1 ;bevel meet: t. .No '86-30' • o. Perm 'and egat'i �e P .` 1 Dec�aration, .io. 86-51 based on the following ,:findi•`ngs 'and. condition's r of. approval _ FINDINGS FOR' APPROVAL = COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIVN0�41- 86-=30 : L ti iJt e $n, < ;. l The r proposed planned itesi'aential .`development° project is' ,consistent =with .the tit Coastal PZone . suffi�i and�.the :Do:�ntown Y. Specific Plan =,Standard; as we].1 a's'.other provisions 'of'i the co o ,. . ' Huntingkon Heach ordinance 'Code appli9ab'le to the property, and of rms . with the lans olici�es , • re uirements And`� standards of ., the. City ! s Coastal Land " Usse • Plan. 2. Thhe proposed development r.an ..'be "pro'vided with infrastructure in a manner that is :consistent with the:: Coastal Land Use Plan . 3 . The proposed development,', conforme.,with the pubIic ' access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 `of the California Coastal :Act. 1 � FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL :PERMIT: 1 . ' The proposed. .development will -promote better living conditions and environment. , '.r Witch technighes f•. 2. 'Thep • wh�i" 1 types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design . u3 . The 'propossed development , will benefit the general �healthw.al ,� Ci:tf ain� eneral :.and w pafety and �llenotnbe afaethe';�neighborhood and";.the Y g . . • , . ,. •; tr`iment to or degrade • property value, in such- neighborhood and the .City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86--50 : 1 . Tlirough the use of the special permit, the' 'propose&&;pla tined t residential development ..is in compliance with: the�. City 's E development standards for this, type of', housing and ''is F. consistent with the combined �;oning 'on , the subject • property. 2 . The proposed planned ,residential • pr,o ject on 7 ,.4 � gross acres 1s proposed ,to be ;'developed having a,, densi L•y' of 2l .8 units per';, :grass acre, which is consi©tent. wiht the Downtown �Specific Plan t and Oldtown Specific Plan 'regulations, w tI Staff Report -- 10r21/E6 (6449d 1 i ' •I w9ESd•:> ►1Yai'.P'rara"utsdwr t.,T.wr»rrc•r ic.: .- -.a•.r .a •.st • , ice `++t � y 3. ,The. lots sire. de 'th frontaQ stireet.< wi,dth's;}'an`d+aliron'jhv.'the ' r, - P 9 3 "ufie. off spec pert , All other.'-Aeeb gn 'and: simplementation `` fe`atur:es_,,Qfithe proposed 'suticiivi'T, wi ii' be: in `c4inpliratice�;.+with the;-•standard nsr peci idations on File ith" it Cik as' pla anr3::s f w e . y : 9 .in CORI 11dC1Ce\�. p � �i th the State Map` AC,t J'atid supple erttary _ well • a Cit S., ubdivision Ordininoe. -r, r ' �„+" •.z, LSk..r 1, •i F� r tr„ 'CONDITIONS !-Of APPROVA ;L -<'CbNDITIONAL USE�.PERKT NO. - 86-50 : t t 4r r r •"...,.; + J, a t 1 ww�tr��,, L fjI''. , t 7.,r• ., r Q. ,of• ,rr'..2 y ��-' , �.�Tar �t' t ' .y I h LG 1 . =Th0, o tee plan,;rtfLoox s," an vaitions receive nd t3a.; plan d e2e' d ;a ed _. ,. h.:ootobec 9 ,: 19.a86; and suppl`emental� el'evati'ons° received 'a d;�daEed -; actob, er-; 14, 1986,, shall be r6vfsed to `r`efle'ct the fohlowing modifications : a: All "A" `u"nita along Attie eastexn portion `'of the. project' shall be ,`two . s ory, , `b. Redu`ction in unit count. fzom. 161 to 159 . c located, opn,, of , Atlanta r s dent-and ,,guest entkiee ',to ' be ,Combin,atio ` oca-teectiposite the proposed Lake Stxeet signalized on •d. Meth• od• of, ac. cess from uE st Parkirn9 ;to e�l: e va o r,: , e: Turnarounds -'provi'ded at secured: entries: f; f. Maximum building height of 35 1 eetd. from sidewalk grade'.• , i , g r.. g . Revised g ara a layout for guest and resident. 'parking :• h . - Tull y .,Yaechanically ventiiate'd° sabteftanean garage with maximum projection at'`midp6i\nt of 18 • inches `above"'grade j 2. Prior' to issuance of building' permits, t}ie applicant shall . 4 submit r the followf ng ::plans: a . Landscape and `i'rrigition plan to 'the'. Department: of",""" Development...Services and. Public Works br,�'review and a proval Said , la ds"a\ ,t ,� .� ,.• ,.t p n c pe: plan 'shall' include , 36- inch box trees along .the,..east open ine= f- ;pr'. ty• �l'� trees `ahall''be o a r�inimum height of 15 =feet at < ime` of installation ;with tree spacing to be 'deterr"'in by 'the : City; A11-' ex s ti 'g canary.. ,. n i �ri' ,• Islan+'d Pali ss hal'1 be relocaked. o si`te and; witN3n the_ ma"In e�'ze3 ional '-ar It a n' _. _ r r 1 stl ea A xi` g ..,,Waphingtonia Robusta Palms shall• tie ' 'irelocated in conformance with .`the ' street tree<`plan of.'- Downtown 'Design Guidelines . r. b�, A prle,11,m nary gateway:' plan' shall be subk t e mf t 'd in' conjunct.ion with�, the, landsc6' and , irrigation",pla'n and in compliarice with ; the Down . town"Design Guideliines. t CO t 64Staff Fepcct 10/xl/96 4\9 i„ 7 c � ' A 1ight`ingl' plan'� fo'r gall `on-si�te �lighEing.`stiall bea submitke�d. d. Roatop Meehani"cal Equipmeyntl Plan/'. Said` plan ehall�' ,.• indicate.::"+'reening of- all ,rooTrto mechan,i.Gal.,e uipment , and P •shall ,. dil'ineate the, EYpe' of! material proposed',to 'screen said'. equipment: . e . Rodent' eradic"ition �-plan ,. ,.approved by'�'the ofange Cotinky .Vector control `'Diskri'et' f. Gzadiiiq an a Drainage 1Plan�',to1 the ' D'epartme it of,TubIic Works for review hd approval: ,Y g . . 'A parking 'management 'plan to 'reflect a{signed space_and Jna more than 200;;'feet, at the 'respective.: unit, "aitd' handicap parking in' compliance with 'State`regtilatibne'. h , Plans for Recreation Buildings to; the ° Department of Development Services for, review and approval:' i . A copy-: 'of they recorded,.' finai map:to"the Department ;o&. Development Services and Public Works . J . The,-applicant shall „enter -an agreement' .to• provide 20i..''i32 ;un' tS: . _low :or moderate income hoiisin Un is -in order ; to comply' with :Mello Bill requirements with '•regard`t'o `'coastal . areas The applicant ..shall .provide housin l_ units foz persons of low or. moderate-, income -.sub71ect ,to theprovisions of.,,, 1 Gove rnment' 'Sect`ion' .65590 (d) , ;The -applicant . a compliance" with;;,Sect" on' 65590(d) `of•. the ,4Government Code,!in ::terms .'off amo-aubuectato, thend arevi„w�•andf ardroval,able houeing pxoVid•ed ��shall be . 7 PP f• the •Department, of Developme'nt . Services. Thus agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorn'ey'$ Off i'ce- as . to form and� coeAtent and ' approved by the Di rectoz of Development Services , A .' -A, materials pallet indicating ,`fi'nl coloi l choicee of• •the building; materials.' and , pr.'o`duct-,'ktypes along.;wi h:i'detail. : design features ..and shall ' be 86bmitted to .the `Des'ign; Re.,view Boar,d .,for, , coinment with final review and approval by the Planning Commission. < 1 . One a t :of revised site and g' arage plans End elevatioiie for .review a nd ' approval -_by the Director of Development , Services . 3 . Orange . Avenue/Atlanta - Avenue 'from Lake Street/Third Street ,•to Alabama , street'•:•.shall�,be" dedic a ' ,tea and `conitxuCtei9 As'' a loo foot primary. arterial highvay to Public. Works standards " and subject to the Downtown Design ' Guidelines. es. ;Staff Report 10/21/06 , 4. LakepStreet ll 'obdi dedlcdtedt and ;constructed 'as a :90 foot , primary ar-aerial h-i'ghway,`,t`o •.Pub1 cWorks standards ands subject to, Elie; Downtown , Design Guidelines,. 4 - . •, •. 1 a •11��,,I 1 '• „ii'. �- .', _ iy j, 1' .K 1,�• r ty . tii. �', -. C 5 . , ''Pecatxl.:Avenue. shal'1 be Ldedi'cated and,, cons ructed :to Putil`ic Wurks Standards , , ' itSF � .v' }'•,:�,�� t t t6 . uacar16h jp'rocee`dings Willtlbe initiated�:by� the;;.Cfy,6f; - , Hunti'ngton �Beach `ford tt�'e�°vacatiari`of Ctiicagc `:iarAvenue �Groes� • Avenu.e an • . r f1 �_ , �.. . , , .Ir�� . -, �a�f fl(j�'tal port'#on' offLake St"r`c:e1.. The ' iremahing port�ton Chi`cRgo.iAvepue,jGross,,)Av,enuey .:b'etween Dot 1 ..'(b,l:ock• 301`')r: ana''rLot 17 ' (block 261) of,�,the 'Vista Del :r1ar,�Tra"ct shall be' .r:�il de laced , :to ;'pu'bI c ,Works standards ..,.. city-,.'sh;a11' maintain . an :easement f))Sr under round `utilities in`•the vacated Lake' Streetali nment 1� ; g, 9 7 . -'_Parking will be p"oh"ibited along.-.Orange/Atlanta, Avenue and `�►ake Street . • 8 . 'Patterned concrete; �iithin'`the: street portion public right-of,--way_ s}iall be ',limited': to ,lo'cati'ons and 'deli 4n established in : the. Downtown Design Guide. Y"�.jl' ,.. V i,.i. ('— Rwl :(� , , r.f 4:: L.,'I} S"C,'. , tt•, !, S ,.1 1.•. !• 9 . Ah1 requ fied. 'landscaping sha l be, installed on site; not within public :�:ri`ght-of way, and maintafnied by the developer A • , . deta,iled,''1andscape 'plan :and spcinkler: .plan shall' be' 'submitted in 'accoraartice with::the Downtown '.Design Guidelines. 10. Cross 'gutteis will .not be permitted' on Lake Street'•and,` Orange/Atlanta `'AVenue . 11 . ;' Water mains, shall• 'be•,construct'�ed `in :,Pecan 'Avenue,',--',Lake Stireet and Oxange/Atlanta Avenue , to`''tie• into` e' sting :systems , �De artmrain fa � � ��' ci'li' ies; shall . be constructed :as= requred';by; ttie I2. Si.orm.:.1d ' p ent , of Public Works .., Cross gutters` w3'll.' not ;be"allowed on Ora , nge/Atlanta "Avenue and Lake Street. 13. No parking will, be .'allowed along orange%Atlanta Attenue and Lake Street The acces3 on• Gake•. Street north, of,,Oran e.A v;enue ma be li'r!i'te 1S to right turns in and out depending •on traffic`• conditions. 15 •, TraAll necessary conduit toretl at eLsignalsnahall'.be conistructed 'by the developer,. 116. The •'overhead : utilities - on Lake Street-. shall' be �:relocated�"•to 'the l new ` sireet ;ali nnent . 17. ion-s3'te water system, shall be constructed and frate'd. per ,, Public works•'requirement - Staff -Relaort - 10/21/86 --10- (6�4901} i r I 18, Qn_site sewer ?ay tem', hall' be"'priyate, but is s1�b eCt ' to Pub13c , , Works . req�ti'rem�i�t8 .•. t t 2., , i J �:.1 a F% r a r •e 'i t 1 7 Fe.- t y ...• Jy y ! � T r �y'ta,.�.._.•Yy it �: yr t :a 19, T e 'de'veloppn sha11 co;np y ',wi all appli� axle°'�ro��i'sior�s of s, the - Code, building 'Division ahcl F'ie Aopatjn nt \ `"., ♦ d t "i ' r�:t. �tJ ,,�i' S :ti.�,. R.t,.,�,7<t .i,.. �I i} tir ' `C,: `.iItru. i.r ,..e.e 20 . bziveway 'approae�es shall be �a• .tni'nimum of t`weOty:-seven ,"feet' ' (27,1 ) i'n wi'dt d sha 1 e 'off xadius ;• : , h an 1 b onstrucion'; { ype o J }ILkI +• ?� i y j;. r ,.\ rF\ �1 .-,gs•J'� 4.,.rs, p..l}; 0�/ M#Stv tt r1,,y `,.,'g 4'r'{'l + tt ..11 as •1 yjt. lqS`�' }ry , •., t! 21.. Fitre; ,Aepartment,°.access: "must be provided within �.5p feet oft, p 1 S �xt unob`str4acted ,tr$ve'1 . The:,;plans ; hal�l ,be., rviaa th install'a�tion `•of ,,24 .foot wide , fi're zcc es ro44lWay7 `on the. �. ' east side; 4E :'the roperty ar; 24's:foot' wide access provided 4, I P w L ih 15Q .;fe'et -'unobsEOu' ct'ed ',from 'Lake and lah'ta"Streets :with , roadways which provide adequate . turharound. . , `{ ;• ..,''rf;�'• ,- 22 . An au`tomati'c sprinkler system approved `by 'the. Fire DePerttmeAt shall :be installed throughout'>'the . conjplex. ,Tt i' includes , ark'i st P ng ructu`re 'and buildings , s' 23 . . A wet combinatj on . stand pipe system,% approved': by . the , Fire r •' ' p6partment sha.,i be installed -in all '.n ,-airways . -I 24 . An automat�.c alarm system approved by the Fire; Department shall be;,i'ns.talled throughout. The system sha11 include the .'follow- ng. `features i fi a . Water Flow and valve tamper detection h-. Trauble signal t, c . Voice communication , d . Graphicrjnuncfation J,. e . Manual; pulls 25 . Elevators, shall be, sized b 8"' ,wide k y 4'' 3" deep to :'o't : �r� ambular ce 'gurney. `,; 'Elevatarstt- 66a1`1 ' be rovided on all. 'flo ;. pcaommodat,e ,the useo=8 including subterran'can; pa•rki'ng 26 . :An-y. proposed trash chute lOcakions and,' system8 , 8hall be . ap'proved . by the Fire Department . `. 27 . Fire ; banes ire .to be posted and signed .`to comply with . Pi.�r'e • Department standards , 28 . Alit'roads are to be it stalled prior tp tyre cotgMe{4cetne»t ;(of :the: a n all' weather ."the., , i'ng,.surfacea i constructed to structian',with, � v . . the standards and specifications of the Putili'c Works Department dater supply ishal� ,be ea able of ` providing 51000 gallons per ' minute- for .fire flow. et Staff .'Repr►r t - 101�1186 -111it . (fi4'49d ) ' II ' ., ..,... .• _......_.. ,. _. . •4• .. ., •SrfY. _ .. n.ti. '11rIr'Ilflw\Il, _ �. -� -- ..• •..1-• .•..• ,♦ , _`?1:.1,i11'M.'T1\•1:j3.:11U1.� �S.ryr¢2,,t,5thu:..:a <a�.r•r}. +�.....cKr.wc-*rr-- -a>•.•e r++. .. .r e,...�w .. + r 3D . Fireext'in4'ui'shere'' shall be; rd�v3ded - Etiin IY feet' of `:travel 9 ,P + ! lanes . . ;; Type of extingui shers and locati�orts '=musr 'bre inr e .0 de a�ar_dardr. accordance with Huntington Beach Fir o s . r �4 f.,' r;. !.s i n,Sj �s, ` w 1 cy., i;aii.1 tia•(._t� II �e�,dE)t 1 S:rri';Y•± ,i. ,. ,t. ,5 ar.. I�, ?•.i,Y ,t j+"7• { v s ro�aosei3 :for. installation; shall •be 31 . A11,;•secur�.ty :,gate location ,�P •- > 't . . , subject; �o. 'review anrd' approval 'by the Fire Departme6t aitd ` Puti'lic works; ,and shy l'1 iricluae' 'a aurriwar6u,hd. -"t -32: Low volume heads shall be used in all showers: •` •,) . �'^yby� ..,^', 33. All building, spoils , 'such` as unused lumber ; wire',, pipe,' and E "other ,,'surplus' "'or unusable�'mafer is shall �e t]isposed of at 6ffsite facility equipped to handle them: 2 ► ;5 � �` C.{ i:` ;1, L ` r •u..':.{. `.,� f+ 3� Ener effi gy 'cient ,lighting, 'such as high pressure sodium vapor • .. { lamps ,lshall b'e u'sed in :;park'ing; lot, `and `recreation :area . A l lighting plan, shall 'be `submitted. :,to Development' Services, why ch J1'lustrates : that spillage onto ac3 jacent -propert ., `ies will riot occur. • $ 1.} .�! %➢t 0. f`i J .,L;. 5t` .f C .li' .n : a .�rM, A11 stcuctu �}} t f, y r x vt t "r s i{.!1 d 35 . re� ron th'e",sub ect ,pr.operti `wheiherk;�attached or t h shahl,,be:.,constructed in com •liance with ,the,-State;; acousti:"cal Standards set `forth for uniEs that lie�'withi`n 3,'th'e ` CNEL con tours,�Juf '6,, pi'aperty Evidence` of 'co'm p1iange 'shall .w consist' of submLttal• of an acousti"cal anal sis repo1.rt �pre,pated under, the su r., ,. . t 5 p�rvision of a person` eXpecienCed . in the �felc��`�of ! acoustical engineering, with the application fora building permit t s + '• .�,r, , .�• ;a s is s s7.r + t r Sri ; • '; 36 . An "engneeri.ng geo o is't shall be engaged ta;,,gubmnit,,a report : indicating" 'the,, ground' sur face dccelecat ion f rom :ear th "movement ' for the. subject property.,., All 's'tr ctuxe`s within 'this development shall ;-be constructed ''in compliance; witht5h'e' ; 9 rated ;by: the geologist'' s.-. report. ula i' z' factor .as indi Cale tons. 9 and anticipates r fol fo'otin s `and` structural : members to ,wittst '9 ,' u • . t City '-for , revi'ew. prior to . issuan ' ? factors ; shalt .'b'e„submitted to the _.; � c� of building permits . - • -37. Natural: yap arid 22u0V electrical shall be•: st fibbed, in ,at the } to atio Y ,.. :, .;f. c ns of the `clothes dr eirs, Th invent ,'may, be fie zequir. e waived 'r'ovided 'that the a licant wi`11 . install a. ,rnoie :ever eff `cient alternative subject .to the `review' and, approval of the Department of. Development services . , 38 . Natural- as shall be stubb ea in at the location 'of„cook ing a facilities , port-a-hea`teirs,, and central heat ing ',uni.ti 'This Z requirement may be waived- provided that. the applicant will provide a- more energy efficient .alternative, subject tor•the }; • review and, approval of the •De artment -of Development• se`tvices. l .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: } Asag •,,,, . • Y n . alternative �actiont the Planning Commission ma cone er denying the subject aipplfc:ation based, on, the following f indings : Staff Report 1DI21%86 �42— ( 5�99d) �.I:iW'+ .?}i..0 LSWyri.11 1VN:.Ih ....wr........wl••'Iit ..� . 1 FIRDINGS�'FOR�`'DERrAL' C4hSTlli, REVEL►v MENT"�PER�IIT:`NO , , •rr!r. In LF,•t�+ll'.0 M.• !M r <. r;ra 1 ♦ ,. •l.• . � .� r r .Hr.�.f h.':,►'e 1.k,•;t 'f II 'J: t,.'... !�i-.,�rF.,w .• I, �• �jll� iae+'jr i '�' r �� 't ,� yr�;:. , ��C !.� •.G '•ate I .:,K'.D + •n'h• _• * , T- j f. 1 . . . 'S., ccq ; tyin� �dev�lp `mere �plf';c�} ' 'o frec:fl ded � ` . ? V , • mmen f ' r ``qe . s..l� the ,co el evelo 1`e t _ e, pee; riot `erte i to In approYed �evelopL��i�t . � r r ► r to , . t t I - , - " , r };'•f�jy"�. a r,l. ? •. },^ �. P,;.,,I 1'}: (j.. +' •�S f I jl•.�ifac; �I < �, t a` , r. FINDING3 'F't?RsihEWtAL',-- `CONDITIO IAW ust FERMI T ti0. 86--$+Q : . I .. .!r{,..a� •• t 1�' ,r t t ,,,`, .. , ,.ry: -t r a•e'9 I+ '. A 1^i s Yt.:. t , ate' �,,,� :t 3f:';� tt ,- "' ".'1,c''�r�e .J�Ct�i�, �xr,. �,�.ap' •�(, ' n,i,i4 .r; �.rj p •r + P',+ pIt � , 1'• '�' e;T COjJ08P l� • U{NN{ :p �! +T,Cd rr�'istdQ�'lt�jji��.id}p� OjYGr.", 48Y jL�AYer a f. �4�` ` }'• ; '. _ ..fC' '• �, r l(. .• 'f '+: F ,�i• i detcimer� efeFt:: po� tie n 'tal Welfare:;; seety�and 6 1 , •1. < , pereo s esi di ar, or g' �: e •a �a a}� ma , co ven' en e�'.rpf. n� N detrime t 1 : o the 'value � e�f the property pd�improveme�tsn the neighbor000a • • ., Fcf,f • *tt�X7:!i T, ,2 yAs,M �.r •',: ii�sf5•' I�r, j '�. .7,. ; Tie'»proposed ? 1,�''ur�it la r�g s� ea .alFo�ect is too i n•,r1 AO I a n t,p tl F p .f r _ntert sg a ,cove ome}�t,,,for ,. e';site an of ca�np�tible ui1.h r suirzo nd g 4sPa' i ther}, gt'Pdthgoq 3. Site la�yout't pyildi9g destoo and location o °tie: proposed ro ect a .not;, be a'rmo �.oi}e with ,ex' ' P , h ] Y,� n ��` ti g ad3acen., develop jents because ^4 'pxo ject' 'igte }siky; 4. Vehicular access poirits, illy create traffic or circulat p .•r .t • I 7 ATTACHMENTS: Ylk Area mq - :, `; ,►' ' 2' Sitzl;pla 's f oo plan-s elPvatians ecelved nd gates 9 tQber __., [ F , , s 3 Ele`v icns �apd cr 0s's slectior�s c FeQ_yed ted Actpber 14` 1 , 4 . Nt:r�t�Ye, 5 . Request fo' Siecial.` '�r�j .t 4 `� 11J I '.'I II t1 j11 .:N t .� { t :TentaBve'. Tract 1.2268 ��'1a ,•co}lc��. ions of fzom ope e, t o e t r , ft 7 'Lebte a, �a�: n pr P � JwPi 1a f� : , r , Staff Report