Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Use Permit CUP1983018 - Supporting DocumentsCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-18 App1: M. Westland Company DATE tv• ) 1 S, j EXPIRATION DATE APPRC l r ' D.Z A. OND i;r L DENI:D WITHDRAWN REFERRED--ACTION PLAN CHECK_..PERMIT ISSUED___. ______DATE 'EXPIRATION DATE Q- l APPROVEi3 81 -A. COND.P.C, DENIED C.C. WITHDRAWN Q REFERRED -ACTION PLAN CHECK PERMIT ISSUED-,___ La 5 -40- V- L- ry-oaf M. WESTLAND CO. TENANT PARKING ALLOCATION TABLE 1sa Ajeus° October 4, 1988 Address Suite Tenant Comm . SF Office SF Man. SF Ware . SF Total i3F PS 16401 Gothard Vacant 16371 Gothard A Nutrition Labs 721 471 1419 2617 5 16371 Gothard B K. Michael School 2946 * 160 183 65 3354 15 16371 Gothard C Realt Bookkee in 765 958 1342 3065 6 16371 Gothard D Rod's International 765 958 1342 3065 6 16371 Gothard E Zi -Vac 636 783 1646 3065 5 16371 Gothard F Vacant 16371 Gothard G Vacant 16371 Gothard H Vacant 16321 Gothard A Vacant 16321 Gothard B Vacant 16321 Gothard C Vacant 16321 Gothard D Vacant 16321 Gothard E Vacant 16321 Gothard F Com uter Products Plus 1050 '37 1458 3065 6 16321 Gothard G FisherMana ement 765 958 1342 3065 6 16321 Gothard H R.L. Wood 765 958 1342 3065 6 16291 Gothard Jackson Racin 2093 421 3466 5980 12 16421 Gothard A Vacant 16421 Gothard B Vacant - 16421 Gothard C Vacant 16421 Gothard D Kaneko Enter rises 1400 183 2748 4331 16351 Gothard A Vacant 16351 Gothard B Vacant 16351 Gothard C Vacant 16351 Gothard D P ro-Comm 1811 183 2091 4085 16331 Gothard A Vacant 16331'Gothard B Vacant 16331 Gothard C, Vacant 16331 Gothard D Nails Ma azine 1181 1340 1810 4331 8 7291 Heil Vacant Total SF By Use 2946 11118 7953 20071 43109 Parking Sr' as Required By Use 14.0 37.1 15.9 20.1 87.1 Total Parking Spaces Allocated 92 Total Parking Spaces Provided 481 Comm. = 1 space /200SF, Office = 1 space/300SF, Man. = 1 space /500SF, Ware. = 1 space /1000SF School M. WESTLAND CO. TENANT PARKING ALLOCATION TABLE Address Suite Tenant Comm. SF 16401 Gothard Vacant 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard A B Nutrition Labs K. Michael School 2946 * 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard 16371 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16321 Gothard 16291 Gothard C D E F G H A B C D E F G H Vacant Rod's International Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Fisher Mana ement Vacant Jackson Racin 16421 Gothard 16421 Gothard 16421 Gothard .16421 Gothard 16351 Gothard 16351 Gothard 16°51 Gothard 16351 Gothard 16331 Gothard 16331 Gothard 16331 Gothard 16331 Gothard 7291 Heil. A B C D A B C D A B C D Vacant Vacant Vacant Kaneko Enter rises Vacant Vacant Vacant P ro-Comm Vacant Vacant Vacant Nails Ma azine Vacant Total SF By Use 2946 Parking Spaces Required By Use 14.0 June 15, 1988 Use Areas Office SF Man. SF Ware . SF,Total SF PS 727 160 765 471 183 958 1419 65 1342 2617 3354 3065 5 15 6 765 958 1342 3065 2093 421 3466 5980 12 1400 183 2748 4331 1811 183 2091 4085 1181 1340 1810 4331 8902 4697 14283 30848 29.7 9.4 14.3 67.4 Total Parking Spaces Allocated 69 Total Parking Spaces Provided 481 Comm. = 1 space/200SF, Office = 1 space/300SF, Man. _ *- School space/500SF, Ware. = 1 space/1000SF t 'c 3. ,r rte!',.k`',,W E-t ,l 75 CITY OF HUN T ING T O N BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION JAMES W. PALIN, Director Development Services From GAIL HUTTON City Attorney Subject T$M 83-563 , Westland Dev.Date January 23, 1987 You have requested our opinion on the effect of the Planning Commission 's action interpreting the condition o£ the referenced map relating to equal overflow of the channel. As we advised the Planning Commission at the time they reviewed the condition , the Commission has no special power with regard to interpreting map conditions. Its action is merely an opinion of the meaning of the condition and does not have any binding legal effect . As we indicated at the meeting , the Planning Commission lacks jurisdiction to make any binding interpretation with regard to the Council's drainage condition , and your department should be guided by the plain meaning of the conditions. AIL H T,TON City A 'ttorn y 1843L 1-23-87 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPi.',E?` SERVICES 11 P. O. Bo),C 190 i-Iuntinc,ton Beach,; CA 92643 CITE ' OF HUNTINGTON B EA CH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION JAMES W. PALIN , Director From GAIL liU'TTON Development Services City Attorney Subject TPM 83-563, Westland Dev.Date January 23, 1987 You have requested our npinion on the effect of the Planning Commission's action interpreting the condition of the referenced map relating to equal overflow of the channel. As we advised the Planning Commission at the time they reviewed the condition, the Commission has no special power with regard to interpreting map conditions. Its action is merely an opinion of the meaning of the condition and does not have any binding legal effect. As we indicated at the meeting, the Planning Commission lacks jurisdiction to make any binding interpretation with regard to the Council's drainage condition, and your department should be guided by the plain meaning of the conditions. AIL HMTTON 1843L 1-23-87 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P. 0. BoX 190 Huntington Beach, CA 9264$ LktNDtCAPtA Ulfe In-,We attWV-,4 144c,e 6v-4 - C', POP-" . e J to 1 S S T-L a z S a. n7 .r1 L..-T7ld-'r7 I., L.-C-- C1-o`r Q1? - F-u 57" d ,v cq lG- , ve k-A 1,4 D, c,-,SP1-i.JCA To Scott Hess CITY O F HI. NTINGT®H BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Subject N/W Corner of Gothard & Heil. (File #83-83) From Bill Patapoff Date August 29, 1986 I have been asked to review and comment on Lee Miller's letter of August 12, 1986 because we have a difference of opinion as to what the drainage condition of approval means. It has been the Engineering Division's interpretation from the time of project approval that if the channel overtops it shall overflow as it did prior to the development of Mr. Miller's property. I have spoken to a few of the residents in the past three years and that was their understanding also. Therefore, the grading plan approved in June, 1984 shows that interpretation and the Engineering Division has never waived from that. position. Now, Mr. Miller is being asked to install landscaping along the channel and he wants to raise his grades approximately 1' to 2 1/2' above the top of the. channel. He would also allow for a spillway onto his property with a greater spillage area than the expansion joints allow in. the residents' wall west of the channel. Lee Miller's interpretation of the condition takes into account the block wall as a barrier against flooding. I agree with him from an engineering standpoint, if the wall can withstand the additional loading from the water. I recommend the wall be analyzed by a licensed engineer and his calculations be approved by the city if this interpretation is accepted. The Heil Avenue box culv:°rt allows less water to pass through it than the channel can convey. Reconstruction of this culvert was identified in the Boyle Engineering report as the number one priority item to correct deficiencies in the Murdy Channel drainage area. Plans and specifications are 90% complete at this time and the project for reconstruction of the culvert is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1987., Therefore, the problem of backwater from the culvert will be eliminated within the next year, but the channel will remain undersized for a 25 year storm and will not be upgraded until funds are avail - able. (All available drainage district funds will be expended with the box culvert reconstruction project.) Lee Miller's project was designed to handle his on-site drainage so that it will not have a detrimental affect on the channel's Meir ,' . Scott Hess N''/K. ' ner of Gothard & Heil At4-;:.,t. 29,• 1986 capacity to carry runoff. He has provided a 100 year retention capability for rain filling onto his property. The question is how to allow possible overflow from the channel in the future. One alternate is to not raise the grade along the east side of the channel and to allow the water to drain as it has since the tract to the west was built. Mr. Miller's pot will accept most of the overflow as it has in the gR+;_,. The other alternative is to verify the structural integiit;r of the tract wall and allow fill to be placed along ehe east side of the channel allowing for a sized sp 1w av to be constructed with the same amount of drainage to Q?' o x-low through the spillway as the construction joints in the wall allow. The first solution favors the tract residents and the second provides additional protection from flooding of Mr. Miller's deveiopment. Either alternate can be accomplished and the decisir:n should be based on the intent of the condition of approval. WAP : 1w cc: Paul Cook Les Evans 1°r C v. t Y1dn11 i C, *hdVS// 4,1 , I m ;re, &,/ /171---, 4 /3j,j -,/ -"JLL-,r-" 1 c)rwc-e Tklc7 f 4'$w, s'ra Q3sS -Ca 1) 0 VN/-w tc 1 Lc' I L C66, I V4,. , 1 v 1 t 'vlCi 1 1R t.r O Y.nVwCCjIOV'CY1 S`II `l5 G sit Ala s --Y '7 Y4 v. tom. Z) 101, G`FP 4l cam-, Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Hair t. Huntington Beach , CA 92648 HUNTING701i BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUG 14 1986 P.O. Eok 190 Huntington Eccch, CA 9264E 13070 OLD BOLSA CH(CA ROAD WEStMiNSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714-894.3896 August 12, 1986 flubiect: M. Westland Industrial Park located at the 't;' corner of Heil & Gothard. Landscape buffer on lot 11 of Parcel Map 83-563 and CUP 83-18. D_ar Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: he believe there are four main issues which need to be decided. We and the Public horks Dept. have come to different conclusions and need guidance. 1. What are the reasons for and meaning of the conditions relating to the landscape buffer and drainage on lot 11 of Parcel Map 83-563? 2. How should grading of lot 11 be handled in the future? 3. Does the current plan satisfy the spirit and intent of the conditions? 4. When should the landscape buffer be built? There are three conditions of approval which relate to grading, drainage and the landscape buffer. The first is CUP 83-18 condition 5. It says, "A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required." The second is CUP 83-18 condition number 18. It says, "M. Westland shall not construct any pavements , or buildings until after March 31,, 1984 except street and drainage i mprovements within the City rights-of-way. Before April 1, 1984 M. Westland will be permitted to grade the project and install underground utilities. On April 1, 1984 M. Westland shall be permitted. to construct buildings and pavements." The third is Tentative Parcel Ma 83-563 condition number 9. It says, "Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer, and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development . The site shall be graded to ensure that, should the channel overtop its banks, the overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west sides." To understand our conclusions on the reasons and meaning of the conditions, some explanation is necessary. CUP conditions 5 and 18 were part of a negotiated agreement between the residents and H. Westland on the landscape buffer and construction schedule. There were discussions at those negotiating meetings and at the Planning Commission hearings that the only porticn of the industrial project that could be seen from the residents' first story back windows would be the back of the buildings immediately adjacent to Tract 6181.. The landscape buffer was proposed to screen only about the top 5 feet of those buildings adjacent to Tract 6181. That is all that can be seen of our buildings when they are set back 45 feet with a back of building height restriction of 18 feet along the channel. Because the buildings near Gothard couldn't be seen from the residences, they don't need screening. M. Westland's intent was to build the landscape buffer along with the first building immediately adjacent to Tract 6181 . The design of the landscape buffer was to be submitted along with the design of the f irst building adjacent to Tract 6181 and it was to include mostly trees as specified at the public hearings . With this phasing , problems of locating buildings over landscape irrigation lines and getting power to sprinkler control valves could be avoided and re-construction kept to a minimum . We remain coavin .:ed that this is the most logical phasing of the landscape buffer. The Planning Commission still maintains ultimate control, because each of the future buildings on lot 11 must be submitted for site plan approval. The Planning Staff has taken a somewhat different view and required submission and approval of landscape and irrigation plans for the landscape buffer prior tc franinc inspection on the current buildings under construction . To comply with this requirement means grades must be set now for the landscape buffer based upon our best judgement on the locations and shapes of the future buildings. That brings us to the Public Works Dept. for approval of a landscape buffer grading plan .',n compliance with Tentative Tract condition 9. The equal distribution of channel overflow concept was added at the City Council hearing because the residents were concerned that the M. Westland project would add water to the channel during a storm and increase the chances that the channel would overtop its banks. They took the position that if we added to the flow, we should provide some flooding protection to them. They did not take the position that we had to provide a overflow basin for everyone else's drainage. The residents' representatives felt it was unfair for our project to solve the existing problems that everyone else had created. They did want some time so the City would not have to contend with the problem until after the 1983 rainy season was over. This wish was agreed to by M. Westland and was, incorporated into the project as CLAP condition 18. We have more than complied with condition 18. The intent of TPM condition 9 was to e ualize flow should the channel overto its banks. The residents were not given a condition that said all or almost all overflow would run onto our property. We were not required to wait for the City to make all channel improvements before we could complete construction. We were also not required to make any channel improvements. We believe the plan submitted complies withTPM conditior_ 9 for several reasons. You should first realize that our project contributes nearly no flow into the channel once the channel depth reaches about 3.7 feet elevation at Heil or about 4.1 ft. from the top of the channel. The reason for this is that our property is not pumping water into the channel, but is draining by gravity to the bottom of the channel. To be able to wait for the channel to subside, our project has been designed to store a 100 yr. storm onsite while keeping the building floors 1 ft. above the pond in our southwestern streets. Clearly our project contributes very little into the channel for the major part of a storm. Our assumed flow into the channel was the motivation and justification for TPM condition 9. The fact that or flow does not even go into the channel during the peak runoff period satisfies the residents' expressed concern about our project's drainage. It should be noted that the residents have a continuous block wall on their side of the channel, extending anywhere from 3 1i2 ft. to 5 1112 ft. Above the top of the channel.. M. Westland could build a similar block wall on the east side of the channel and be within a literal interpretation and spirit of TPM condition 9. Such a block wall would be a substantial barrier to flooding if the channel were to overtop its banks. M. Westland has not proposed such a wall but rathera design that results in more overflow going to our side. An important fact is that the water will jump out of the channel at the Heil bridge and overflow into Heil once it reaches 15.75 feet elevation. Since the top of the channel is about 14.7 feet near the bridge, the deepest the water can get above the top of channel is about 1 foot. The residents' block walls will hold back over 99 of the water until it raises substantially above the top of the channel. If the water reached the depth of l ft.., the lateral load on the block wall would be only about 10 lbs. per lineal foot greater than the wind load it already is designed to withstand. (Code requires walls to withstand a wind load of 20 lbs. per square foot. The lateral force of water 1 foot high is 31.2 lbs. per lineal foot.) Our walls in California are designed to withstand the much greater forces of wind and earthquake. Our conclusion is that the block walls will likely withstand the force of water deeper than 1 foot. The only leakage would be through 1/4 in. wide expansion joints in the walls. The expansion joints are spaced, on the average, about every 65 ft. Therefore, there are 19 such expansion joints along the channel. The leakage into the residential area would be equal to or slightly less than and opening 4 3/4 inches wide (19 x 1/4 = 4 3/4). If tho water reaches 1 foot deep, the area of the opening would be 57 square inches (12 x 4 3/4 = 57). To kee the residents and M. Westland e ual our ro'ect would need to rovide an overflow s illwa with a cross sectional area of 57 s uare inches . Our current Ian rovides 216 s uare inches which is about 4 times that re wired to kee the residents and our ro 'ect e ual. The Public Works Dept. has required that we not build any curbs, planters or pavement higher than the top of the channel along its entire length. We disagree with this position. We believe the cincepts in the current project grading plan - G1 and landscape buffer grading plan - G3 comply with drainage conditions. The next question is where to locate the overflow spillway. Our calculations show that the overflow will most likely occur near the Heil bridge. The two most important engineering reasons for overflow within 150 LF upstream from the bridge are that the box culvert is undersized, and the channel slope flattens in that area. The box culvert under the bridge is capable of taking only a portion of the flow that the trapezoid channel can hold. It therefore acts as a partial obstruction. It can cause the water to back up behind the culvert and fill the channel to overflowing near the bridge when it otherwise would not overflow. The, channel slope also flattens in the same 150 LF length of the channel. This causes the water to slow and again decreases flow. The change in slope is from about an average of .00077 to .00010 near the bridge. We believe the logical and common sense place to locate the overflow spillway is near to the bridge. From the overflow spillway we propose to direct the flow to our streets. Our submitted plan, GL-3, reflects such a. design. In conclusion, we believe that the plan submitted is in compliance with the spirit and literal interpretation of the conditions of approval. We ask that the Planning Commission approve the concept of a overflow spillway near the Heil bridge. We also ask that the grades along the landscape buffer be approved. Last, we ask that the final landscape material and irrigation design for the buffer along the west side of lot 11 be submitted and approved with the first building along that side of lot 11. Construction of the landscape buffer to be completed with the first building along the west side of lot 11. We thank you for your patience and consideration in clarifying they above issues. William Lee Miller, Partner page 3 e Al ra HUNTINGTON BEACH I NTER-D P VI' To Jam . Palin rector From Zelefsky A s date Planner Subject WESTLAND COMPANY Date August 1, 1985 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-18 Today, residents who live adjacent to the future industrial complex planned for the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil came to speak with Sergio and myself about the site. They indicated that William: Lee Miller had requested their approval to delay installation of the landscape buffer regiired by the conditional use permit (see attached letter). We informed the residents that unless there was 100% agreement among the property owners, no delay would be granted. Sergio indicated to the residents that he transmitted a letter to Mr. Miller to advise him of this fact. HZ: jr cc: CUP file 83-18 Attachment CITY OF HUNTINGTON E r- James W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DRAFT HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUG 01 1985 P.O. Bnk'1Da9, 1985 tington Inh CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 83-18,1C ndition of Approval No. 5. Dear Mr. Palin, You might remember that the City Council adopted the said condition after we sent them a joint letter dated Nov. 1, 1983 explaining our desires. We explained that after deCailed and careful negotiating we agreed to the condition so that both the residents' and the industrial park owner's goals could be achieved. We tried to make it clear that both sides had given concessions to achieve a fair agreement and that adoption of our intent was important to achieve a desired balance. We understand that there currently is a question as to the meaning and intent of condition number 5. The condition reads as follows: "5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual. enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required." There was discussion at both the Planning Commission hearing and at our negotiating sessions that the only portion of the industrial project that could be seen from the resident's first story back windows would be the back of the buildings immediately adjacent to Tract 6181. This is demonstrated by the attached sketch The landscape buffer was proposed to screen those buildings adjacent to Tract 6181. Since the buildings near Gothard'can't be seen at all from the res dences, th y d 't need T 1 "t- `tom Q c ,.! l vscreeninga1S yr1 IS vv"a •-wy eJy,o 1 13w c, -1 ^S vJ l v l.c C.O.^^•,,p ! & W is~i heOu intent was a !zoh t e landscape u fear be built along with the first building immediat y adjacen to Tract 6181, The design of the landscape buffer should be submitted along i e design of the first building adjacent to Tract 6183. We understand that there are both grading and irrigation problems to do otherwise. The residents wish to have the industrial site act as a partial overflow for flood drainage as low as possi le. Current cons ruction of the lan scape uffer would likely act as a dam to that overflow. Raising the planter area grade to provide for future drainage toward the street within the industrial park, plus curbs or planter walls would act as substantial barriers to overflow. We understand that the future grade of the industrial site adjacent to Tract 6181. will have to be raised somewhat to accommodate buildings which mee, the City's drainage criteria. The planter area will have to be slightly higher yet. You can see that early construction of the landscape buffer is not an advantage . The requirement for design and construction of the landscape buffer contrary to the intent of our conditions of approval will likely upset the attainment of one of the residential community's goals. Please adopt our intended dates for design submittal and construction of the landscape buffer. Thankyou for your consideration and we look forward to your continued --ooperation. Sincerely, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , CA 92683 Edward S. Garakian 16392 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Frank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach ., CA K. Dean Zitko 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA ,a <C Tract 181 Negot iating Committee r VI-/12 f) 'La `l l fin il C, I'll 46, L, P "2 V \ A IB` COUNCIL APPROVED- P 41' 75` ,r1JA ,LAS I (p co <, *-ABQrr1/4OFT}EH OMES HAVE FENCESATTI SHE)GI{G THE REWM0MNA%fPEFE .6ATTHELOWERH GHTUSEDINMEASURING DRAFT James W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2008 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 July 19, 1985 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 83-18, C ndition of Approval No. Dear Mr. Palin, You might remember that the City Council adopted the said condition after we sent them a joint letter dated Nov. 1, 1983 explaining our desires. We explained that after detailed and careful negotiating we agreed to the condition so that both the residents' and the industrial park owner's goals could be achieved. We tried to make it clear that both sides had given concessions to achieve a fair agreement and that adoption of our intent was important to achieve a desired balance. We understand that there currently is a question as to the meaning and intent of condition number 5. buildings near Gothard can't be seen at all from the res dences , th y d 't need VT-v, V i V1 o.Q'LscreeningaiSY, e,& n ,,.' cli S W C 1 eS 14 I-, Ou intent was and re a ns £]iat the landscape u fer be built along with the first building immediately adjacent to Tract 6181 . The design of the landscape buffer should be submitted along with the design of the first building adjacent to Tract 6181. We understand that there are both grading and irrigation problems to do otherwise. The residents wish to have the industrial site act as a partial overflow for flood drainage as lon as ossi le . Current cons ruction of the lan scape offer wor'-d likely act as a dam to that overflow . Raising the planter area grade to provide fay- future drainage toward the street within the industrial park , plus curbs or planter walls would act as substantial barriers to overflow. We understand that the future grade of the industrial site adjacent to Tract 6181 will have to be raised somewhat to accommodate buildings which meet the City's drainage criteria. The planter 'area will have to be slightly higher yet. You can see that early construction of the landscape buffer is not an advantage . The requirement for design and construction of the landscape buffer contrary The condition reads as follows: "5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required." There was discussion at both the Planning Commission hearing and at our negotiating sessions that the only portion of the industrial project that could be seen from the resident's first story back windows would be the back of the buildings immediately adjacent to Tract 6181. This is demonstrated by the attached sketch. The landscape, buffer was proposed to screen t.,ose buildings adjacent to Tract 6181. Since the to the intent of our conditions of approval will likely upset the attainment of one of the residential community 's goals. Please adopt our intended dates for design submittal and construction of the landscape buffer . Thankyou for your consideration and we look forward to your continued cooperation. Sincerely, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , CA 92683 Edward S. Garakian 16392. Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Frank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lane -~? 7$3 52 Huntington Beach., CA Dean Zitko 16332 wr 1Magellan Lane rJ Huntington Beach, CA Tract 6181 Negotiating Committee L119 1') et COUNCIL APPROVE P 6I"1 1 n11' 41, 75, 37e I c - 0 ° ;SAS #- ABaR 1/4 OFTHE HOMES HAVE FENCES A 0 TTI9S HEIGHT. THE REMAINDER HAVE FENCES AT THE LOWER HEIGHT USED IN MEASURING -9, CITY UNTO ETON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648I DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714) 536.5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536.5271 July 18, 1985 William L. Miller M. Westland Co. 13070 Old Bolsa Rd. Westminster, CA 92683 'SUBJECT: NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOTHARD & HEII PROJECT; Landscaping Installation. (Plan Check No. 13130 Extensign) Dear Mr. Miller: Per your request, the staff reviewed your petition for the delay on the installation of landscaping and irri- •gation along the western property line abbuting the ex- isting single family home. The staff determination requires that you obtain approval of landscaping and irrigation drawings'irior a framing .inspection for phase one, but including the strip of land- scaping and irrigation along the western; property line. Nevertheless, the staff will consider `t1 approval of a two-year installat".on delay if all neighboring residents agree in writing tc such delay. In addition, a bond shall be posted to guarr.,.nty such future installation. In reference to Flan Check No. 13130, an extension of time on the Plan Cheek has been granted until August 6, 1985. V"°lG Ol W 8f--) E gI 1 9,-;,). ft 100 'r'l.; ['-16 e . L 4 'tea l ! °5 .4 L1/ Pone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute MICHAEL J. GENOVESE- TIM PAONE SUSAN W. HALDEMAN VIRGINIA CUTE" RALPH H.MAZUREK *MEM8E45 OF A PROFES . TONAL COOPJRATICN November 18, 1983 Mr. Jim Palin Director of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 HAND DELIVERED Dear Jim: Enclosed with this letter are copies of (i) a letter which will be delivered today to each member of the City Council and (ii) an agreement reached between the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, which borders this project, and the applicant on this project, M. Westland Company. As you are aware, my office represents M. Westland Company. If, after reviewing the enclosed documents, yo have any questions or comments regarding the agreement reached between the applicant and the residents, please give me a call so we may discuss any concerns prior to the City Council meeting on Monday night. I appreciate your courtesy and assistance in reaching a workable solution to the issues involved in this matter. TIM PAONE cc:Lee Miller HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOV 1'C;33 P,0: Box 190 Huntington Beath, CA 92648 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD • P. O_ BOX 7760 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92658-0760 • (714) 640-1680 A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Paone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute MICHAEL J. GENCVESE TIM PACNE SUSAN W. HALDEMAN VIFGINIA GUTE* RALPH R. MAZUREK * MEMBERS OF A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 18, 1983 A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Don McAllister HAND DELIVERED 1121 Park Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 Dear Don: Attached to this letter is a copy of an agreement entered into between M. Westland Company, the applicant on this project, and the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, representing the residents of the community bordering the project (the "Agreement"). As stated in the Agreement , the applicant and the residents spent a substantial amount of time in compromising their respective positions. M. Westland Company desires to honors its commitment represented by the Agreement and urges you to approve the project subject to the conditions attached to the Agreement. However, recognizing that this Agreement does not hind the city council and in light of the recommendation of the Development Services Department that the project be approved in ,a manner consistent with the planning commission's prior approval, the applicant requests that the counci l take the following concerns into consideration if the council elects to approve the project with conditions different from those either (a) agreed to by the applicant and the residents or (b) approved by the planning commission: 1. A landscape buffer has not been required in similar projects. The applicant has agreed to a six-foot buffer with a six-foot building setback or a four-foot buffer with a forty-five foot building setback. Any greater landscaping requirement would adversely affect the design and circulation of the project and would make it very difficult for this project to compete with other projects in the area 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD • P.O. BOX 7760 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92658-0760 - (714) 640-1680 II November 18, 1983 Page 2 which were not subject to similar restrictions. Suggestions that a fifteen-foot fully landscaped setback might provide a compromise are misplaced. Such a condition is totally unprecedented in prior city approvals and would work a significant hardship upon the applicant. The placement of truck doors on the side of the project is only feasible with the minimal setback proposed by the planning commission. The residents have agreed to the placement of the truck doors at the rear of the buildings with a seventy-five foot setback from their property lines. 3. If, after the conclusion of the public hearing, the council desires to approve the project on conditions different from those either agreed to by the residents or approved by the planning commission, the applicant would request an opportunity to comment upon any new conditions which the council might consider. The applicant has made substantial concessions in reaching the proposed compromise. Any further restrictions on this project would be grossly inequitable. If you have any questions regarding this project, you may contact me at 640-1680 prior to the meeting. Additionally, I will be present at the meeting to answer any questions which might arise. Sincerely, Tim Paone /kg enclosure cc: Planning ' Department City Attorney Lee Miller November 1, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. Dear Sir, The residents of Tract 6181 and M. Westland Company met on October 27, 1983 to discuss and work toward a mutually acceptable and competitive industrial project at the northwest comer of Heil and Gothard. Upon careful and detailed consideration, the residents', negotiating committee and M. Westland have agreed to conditions which beneficially satisfy their needs and desires relative to the proposed development. It is believed that this agreement should end the controversy of interpreting the zoning ordinance and locating the boundary between the industrial zone and residential zone. We have agreed to conditions which are. greater than required by code and greater than required of similar nearby industrir projects. Changes in these conditions or additional conditions are likel- to upset the attainment of the residential community's goals and/or greatly damage the proposed project's ability to successfully compete wit existing nearby industrial developments. We jointly ask that you approve the M. Westland Company industrial project subject to the atached set of Conditional Use Permit - Conditions of Approval and the Planning Comriiss ion approved Tentative Map - Conditions of Approval. In a spirit of cooperation we have both given concessions. M. Westland must protect.the proposed project's ability to successfully compete with recently completed industrial developments and the residents of Tract 6181 want protections for the future enjoyment of their property. The beginning negotiating positions varied greatly. The issues negotiated were as follows: A. Buildin Setback The residents wanted the building setback from their property lines to be 75 feet. It was M. Westland's position that a strict reading of the zoning ordinance would require no setback from the project's property line but the spirit of the ordinance might require a 15 foot setback. The 15 feet plus 30 feet of flood channel would be a total of 45 feet from the residents' property lines. B. Buildin Hei ht - The residents wanted the building height at the westerly side of lot 11 to be 18 feet. It was M. Westland's position that other recently completed nearby industrial developments had no building height restrictions and none should be required of this project. C. Landsca e Buffer - The residents wanted a tree landscape buffer. it was M. Westland s position that other similar and nearby projects were not required to give any landscape buffers and had full use of all their property for building. The landscape buffer is an expense which damages the proposed project's ability to compete with completed developments. D. Flood Channel Ca acit - The residents wanted a delay in construction of buildings and pavement to give the City the opportunity for the timely and efficient installation of flood channel improvements before the 1984- 1985 rainy season. It was M. Westland's position that they can delay pavement and building construction until April 1, 1984 but no longer. -2- Further the capacity pro' of the flood channel was not created by the proposed project and the !nses of channel improvements should not be paid by the proposed proj._ c solely. The attached conditions represent an agreement between the residents and M. Westland. In summary, M. Westland agrees to a 75 foot building setback from Tract 6181,_4 foot tree landscape buffer, 18 foot building height limit within 110 feet of Tract 6181, and a limited delay in some construction. The residents agree to no block wall on the proposed project's perimeter since most residents couldn't see the wall, no restrictions on location of doors and windows, no restrictions on the use of the area between buildings and landscape buffer, no requirements for noise studys, no construction delays due to flood channel improve- ments beyond March 31, 1983, and to discontinue any and all objections to the proposed project if the attached conditions are approved by the City Council as attached. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this project. Please follow our wishes so that controversy and objections can end. Sincerely Yours, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster, CA 92683 Edward S. a 16392 Magel kian an Lane Huntington Beach,CA rank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lan/ Huntington Beach, A Dean Zitko 16332 MEgellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Tract 6181 Ne otiatin Committee CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 83-18, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1983, and the elevations dated pane 17, 1983, shall be the approved site plans and elevations. 2. Commercial/office uses allowed in the project shall be governed by the list of uses contained in. Resolution No. 1313 and shall be located only in those buildings and suites so indicated on the approved site plan. Any change in the list of uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All building spoils, suc.. as unused lumber, wire,. pipe. and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 4. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain, trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences --9.jacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be prin. =y trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on _e in the Depart- ment of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall , be required. 6. The development shall comply with all requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 7. The second story lofts on the commercial suites shall be used for 'storage/industrial only rather than as additional retail space. 8. A soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill, properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities . 9. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development services prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The sewer , drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. 12. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollu- tants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 13. A minimum 45, foot building setback shall be provided from the westerly property line of lot 11. B.iildings may have doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. 14. Within 80 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 18 feet. Between SO feet and 110 feet of the. westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 31 feet . Building height in the remainder of the project shall conform ,to the 14-1 development standard for height. 15. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Toxic gases or matter shall not be emitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals or vegetation , or other forms of property, or which can cause any excessive soiling beyond the lot lines of the use. 17. Odors from gases or other odorous matters shall not be in such quantities as to be -)ffensive beyond the lot line of the use. 18. M. Westland shall not construct any pavements or buildings until after March 31,1984 except street and drainage improvements within the city right -of-ways. Before April 1, 1984 M. Westland will be permited to grade the project and install underground utilities. On April 1, 1984 M. Westland shall be permitted to construct buildings and pavements. i Subject CITY OF HU TINGT O N BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUN.9 ATION h James W. Palin, Director Development Services Gail Hutton City Attorney BACK-UP MATERIAL TO REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES NO. 2404 cup R_tz3 I& nn Friday, November 4, 1983, we received the attached information from the project proponent of the proposed industrial development iocat(d at the northwest corner of Heil Avenue and Gotha-'d Street regaruing zoning on the flood contro channel adjacent to the sub- ject site. We are transmitting this information to you in addi- tion to the original request for opinion and additional back-up materll sent under separate cover (attached). If you have any questions, please contact me. ,'Ydi':iINB:sr Attach ants .P] t ] k';:e .CITY OF HU I NGTO ®E INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ; PR" NT ICES; /o-z 9 P.O. Box 190, 'ames' W. Palin, Director velormentServices V sejPezmit'8 Huntington 92648 - Fro rn =,: Paul E. Crok, Directo ` pbl is Works, v' ate F: ' October 20, '1983" As you requested, we reviewed the two issues about runoff raised by the 'Cit y Council at their October 10 ,, 1983 meetin "first issue, as you stated it, :was: '4, adverse .imipacts on the residential neighborhood to the west? `;4 . would it be acccanplished? To what extent would.,-this mitigate potential ,, channel south of Heil Avenue. Would this be'possible and, •if so, how The Council raised the possibility of draining the project, site into the drainage fran the industrial sit . Assuming that the channel will be ,, developer to handle the existing drainage as well as the. additional "awould be possible to drain the industrial site south to Heil. A larger line, to replace the 27" existing storm drain, could be installed by the w% south side of the street and gravity flows into the storm drain channel g',just south of the box structure under Heil Avenue. It appears that it certain. There is a 27" storm drain in Heil Avenue which runs along the c;Without a detailed hydrologic study, the answer to this question is not residential neighborhood north of Heil and west of the industrial site. If the channel is not upgraded, directing flows downstream of Heil will reduce the flow in the channel adjacent . to . the residential area by about two of depth in the channel)12-15 cubic feet per second (or an.inch'or , into the channel south of Heil Avenue will probably have no effect on the upgraded to handle design flows, the effect of draining the project site The second issue . you requested a response to is: the top of control levee. Or it could be. graded to drain to an ' -. - -se or to the east. It could be graded to be lower or higher than grade the site. At this time, no grading plans are available. Apparently, the developer is awaiting the outcome of the appeal of his project before cncing design. It appears that the site could be graded to drain to Is this a correct assessment and, i; o,'what mitigation measures could be imposed on the proposed development to prevent this from occurring? Engineering staff contacted the developer to determine how he intends to A- all overflow from the channel would in into the residential neighborhood. today, at least part of the, overflow would run onto the vacant industrial -y-, property and that once the industrial property is graded for development, The residents suggested that if the channel were to overtop its banks and be to the channel tfie site graded to insure that should the east and west sides. channel overtop its banks, overflow would be equally distributed to the ti Page 10 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 fo he period of October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1984. The Mayor f state hat copies of the Housing Assistance Plan are available for r iew in the City erk's office. The City Clerk nounced that all legal requirements for ication posting had been m , and that she protests to the matte The Mayor declared the hear' and had received no co ications or written open,. There being no one present to spe filed, either oral or written, the 0 he matter and there being no protests ring was closed by the Mayor. Following discussion, a mot' n was made b)' attinson, seconded by Bailey, to approve and authorize s f to submit the Lou 'ng Assistance Plan for the Federal Government F' cal Year October 1, 1983 t ough September 30, 1984 by the following ro call vote: AYES: P 'tinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, M dic NOES None ABS Thomas PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED OPEN TO 11/21/83 - CUP 83-18/TPM 83-563/CE 83-26/ND 83 -21 - APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILWOMAN BAILEY - APPEAL FILED BY INEZ NEUENFELDT & K DEAN ZITKO -NEIL/GOTHARD The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 83-18, Tentative Parcel Map 83-563, Conditional Exception 83-26 and Negative Declaration 83-21. The basis for Councilwoman Baileys appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage proble.i within the surrounding neighborhood. The basis for Inez Neuenfeldt and K. D. Zitko's appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west, building height restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. CUP 83-18 is a request to permit a mixed use industrial development of 201,110 sq. ft. of commercial and office uses with future build-to-suit areas located on the NW corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street. The subject property is approximately 16.9 acres in size and is zoned ML (Light Industrial District). TPM 83-563 is a request to create an eleven lot industrial subdivision on the same site . CE 83-26 is a request to allow parking spaces for compact cars in place of standard size parking spaces in the proposed industrial development. The Mayor stated that the adoption of ND 83-21 would be a determination that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. I BH B Cc GUP 4(z 4 l os 0 -by ZCCgA i-2) L r 1(2(2f- 91 TF,tn<.r (oV VOTE -to gipR0VAL -G F4SIUA L z)vE LDw 6 - V,Aiv( OJ4, LC CITY O F HUNTh GTO.1 BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Don Mac Allister -Mayor From James W . Palin, Director Development Services Subject,RESPONSE TO RESIDENT ON Date MAGELLAN LANE In response to Mr. Hardin'a recommendations for the proposed industrial project at the northwest corner of Gothard.Street and Heil Avenue, you may wish to inform him. that the applicant has submitted the attached alternative sectional elevations for setbacks and building heights along the eastern property line of the proposed industrial development. These alternatives will be presented to the City Council on November 21, 1983. None of the alternatives reflect both the 18 foot maximum building height and 45 foot setback from the east boundary of the flood. control channel requested by Mr. Hardin. The applicant's alternatives do, however, ,either increase the amount of setback or building height limitations imposed by the Planning Commission. As you may recall, the Planning Com - mission required a 6 foot setback from the flood control channel with a maximum building height of 29 feet. The Commission required that build- ing walls facing the residential subdivision contain no doors or windows and that no truck doors be located within 25 feet of the westerly prop- erty line. The staff's position has been that the Planning Commission's conditions of approval will mitigate any potential incompatibilities be- tween the industrial and residential developments. The applicant's alternatives also appear to be satisfactory to mitigate these potential incompatibilities . Mr. Hardin's suggestion of a 45 foot setback from the east boundary of the flood control channel would result in a setback of 75 feet between the rear property lines of the residential lots and the industrial build- -`ings since there is a 30 foot wide flood control channel in between the ",properties. This surely would be advantageous to the residential prop- erty owners, however, may'impose undue hardship on the industrial land owner. It is the staff's position that the site plan and conditions of approval, approved by the Planning commission, will adequately mitigate any land: use incompatibilities. In regard to Mr. Hardin's request for a'landscape buffer zone, the staff supports this requirement. Development Services staff, prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on this project, requested input from the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department regarding traffic generated by the proposed development, and was informed that the adjacent arterial streets (Gothard and Heil) could adequately handle the additional traffic generated from the development. Heil Avenue is an arterial street and, therefore, de- signed for heavy volumes of vehicular traffic. It is staff's position that this project will not result in unsafe traffic conditions on Heil Avenue. Don Mac Allister Magellan Lane Page Two In response to Mr. Hardin's concern about a satisfactory resolution of the flood control program, as you know, the City Council on November 7 authorized staff to request proposals from private con- sulting firms to study the channel design at Heil and Gothard and recommend the necessary improvements for adequate flood protection. This study should be completed in approximately 4 to 6 months. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. JWP:JRB:sr Attachment NIINCTON BEAGN SUBJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Jim palin, Director FROM Don MacAllister Development services MAGELLAN LANE Mayor DATE October 18,1983 Enclosed is a letter I received from Robert Hardin of 16242 Magellan Lane regarding proposed development in his area, His comments seem a bit one-sided, and I would appreciate receiving your views in writing so that I may respond to Mr. Hardin's concerns. Thank you. DM: gl Enclosure cc: City Administrator HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENTSERVIC=S OGT201983 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ROBERT T. HARDIN 16242 MAGrLLAN LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92647 7141642.8834 I'I'i 198.3 October 11, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE The Honorable Don McAllister Mayor of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mayor McAllister: Thank you for your courtesy and consideration at the public hearing concerning the appeals of Conditional Use Permit 83-18. As a 14 year homeowner on Magellan Lane, I am very concerned about the ramifications of the proposed development. As it now stands, I feel that I will suffer considerable financial loss due to a decline in property values. In addition, I will be deprived of the pleasure of enjoying my property in which I have invested considerable time, effort and money. Specifically, I recommend and plead that you respond favorably to the requests of Magellan Lana ;I meowners that: 1. Building height restrictions to 18'0" along the west side of the light industrial park which col forms with the project at the southwest corner of Heil and Gothard. 2. Building set back of 451 from the east boundary of the flood control channel to conform with the recently constructed buildings at the southwest corner of Heil and Gothard. 3. Plant a landscape buffer one between the flood control channel and the new construction. 4. Heavy traffic control on Heil. We are concerned about the additional heavy traffic on Heil near our schools. 5. Satisfactory resolution of flood control program. There is no reason that bnisiness and residence cannot be compatible if consideration is given to both sides. I welcome development and progress but not to the financial and asthetic detriment of our neighborhood. Thank you again, I know you ^l=do what is right for the citizens of Huntington ucutAl. /! Since1yy yo s, Subject CITY OF HUN T INGTON BE CH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Paul Cook, Director Department of Public Works CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-18 (Industrial Development north of Heil, west of Gothard) From Date James W . Palin, Direct Development Services October 12, 1983 At the October 10, 1983 City Council meeting, the Council raised some concerns about runoff from the above-referenced property. Relative to these concerns, we would appreciate your input on the following issues: 1. The Council raised the possibility of draining the project site into the channel south of Heil Avenue. Would this be possible and, if so, how would it be accomplished? To what extent would this miti- gate potential adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood to the west? 2. The residents suggested that if the channel were to overtop its banks today, at least part of the overflow would run onto the vacant industrial property and that, once the industrial property is graded for development, all overflow from the channel would run into the residential neighborhood. Is this a correct assessment and, if so, what mitigation measures could be imposed on the proposed development to prevent this from occurring? I would appreciate your response as soon as possible. JWP:CI:df Page 10 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 for the period of October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1984. The Mayor stated that copies of the Housing Assistance Plan are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. There being no one filed, either oral present to speak on the or written, the hearing Following discussion , a motion approve and authorize staff to Federal Government Fiscal Year the following roll call vote: matter and there being no protests was closed by the Mayor. was made by Pattinson, seconded by Bailey, to submit the Housing Assistance Plan for the October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1984 by AYES: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES None ABSENT Thomas PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED `OPEN TO 11/21/83 - CUP 83-18/TPM 83-563/CE 83-26/ND 83-21 - APPEAL Fl- Y COUNCILWOMAN BAILEY APPEAL FILED BY INEZ NEUENFELDT & K DEAN ZITKO NEIL/GOTHARD The Mayor announced that this was. the day and hour set for a Public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 83-18, Tentative Parcel Map 83-563, Conditional Exception 83-26 and Negative Declaration 83-21. The basis for Councilwoman Bailey's appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. The basis for Inez Neuenfeldt and K. D. Zitko's appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west, building height restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. CUP 83-18 is a request to permit a mixed use industrial development of 201,110 sq. ft. of commercial and office uses with future build-to-suit areas located on the NW corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street. The subject property is approximately 16.9 acres in size and is zoned Ml (Light Industrial District). TPM 83-563 is a request to create an eleven lot industrial subdivision on the same site . CE 83-26 is a request to allow parking spaces for compact cars in place of standard size parking spaces in the proposed industrial development. The Mayor stated that the adoption of ND 83-21 would be a determination that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met , and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Page 9 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 t On motion by Pattinson , second Kelly , Council adopted , as amended , Resolution No. 5309-C, by `the following roll call voLe: AYES , Pattins?n , Kelly MacA l lister, Mandic NOES: Finley , "5ailey ABSENT: Thomas PUBLIC HEARING - ZONB, CASE 83-9 - APPROVED - ORD NO 265 ,3 --INTRODUCTION APPROVED - ND 83-28 -»,APPROVED The Mayor announced than this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Zone Case 83-9 and Negative Declaration 83-28, a request to permit an expansion of the permitted , uses on property zoned ,,(Q) C4 (Hi ghway Commercial District combined with a cbalified classificatioif ) to include a "Fisherman's Supply Center." The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and "A" Street§and is currently restricted to "Office Professional " uses only . (17021 and 17011 "A';."Street ). At the September , 7, 1983 Planning Commission meeti g, the Planning Commission approved Zone Case 83-9, as requested by the appl ant, and als,6 approved a maximum building size of 3,000 square feet for the subject property. The Mayor stated that Negative Declaration No. 83-28 would alsoke considered in conjunction with said Zone The City Clerk announced that all l,gal requirements for notification, publicati on and posting had been met \ 9d that she had received no comunicaions or written protests to t matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open There being no one present to spec on t 4 e matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, th hearin was closed by the Mayor. }',,for Council consideratrion - "ANThe City Clerk presented Ordina ?ce No , 265 .ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTI TON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SE ION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE WITHIN AN FXIS NG QUALIFIED C-4 DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON BEACH BOULEVARD S UTH OF WARNER (Z61E CASE 83-9)." A motion was made by Patti son , seconded by Bailey , Council approved Negative Declaration 83-28 , approv d Zone Case 83-9, and after reading by title, approved introduction of rdinance No. 2653 , by to following roll call vote: h''TS: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Barley, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas / t PUBLIC HEARING - Hd IUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN -- STAFF AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT HAP TO FEDERAL GOVERNMEN FY FOR 10/1/83 THROUGH 9/30/84 The Mayor annou ced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the p oposed Housing Assistance Plan (HAP which i dentifies the City goals for federal assistance and is to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Devlopmant on or about October 31, 1983 . This annual HAP is Page 11 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 Mary Baroglio spoke regarding noise from delivery and garbage trucks, smell from garbage and the sight of trash . She requested that Council approve a 45' -setback from the east side of the flood control channel. Cal Faello stated that he wanted the proposed project to proceed but with modifications regarding setback, landscape buffers and traffic controls. Edward Garakian spoke regarding flood control , security and building height. Inez Neuenfeldt presented pictures to Council and spoke regarding debris, outside storage, garbage , building height, setback and traffic on Heil Avenue. Councilman Pattinson suggested that staff inspect the area the next day for code violations. Dean Z i tko spoke regarding setback and height restrictions . He questioned whether the flood control channel was part of the Ml zoning. Robert Hardin spoke regarding flooding of streets ., He spoke regarding the proposed building height. Tim Paone , representing M. Westland Company, compared the proposed project to other projects in the area with regard to conditions and restrictions pertaining to setback and height. Discussion was held regarding the matter. Discussion was held between Council , Glen Godfrey and the Ci t y Attorney regarding the zoning of the flood control channel . Discussion was held regarding flooding , setback and building height. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by Finley , to continue the public hearing open to November 21, 1983 , to iirect staff to return with a report regarding the legal questions on the zoning of the flood control channel as well as a report regarding the timing of improvements , regarding the flood control channel. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mandic None Thomas PUBLIC COMMENTS Chaunce Alexander , Sall Alexander , Dorothy Grubbs , Arnold Alvarez spoke regarding flood prevention in the southern part of the city. Alice Bowes requested Council to support the concept of two volunteers riding in the Rose Parade . She stated that the parade theme was "Volunteers". Dean Albright spoke against approving the equestrian trail from Bolsa Chica Linear Park to the Santa Ana River. Page 12 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 Mary Matheis spoke ,,, regarding the City-Wide Housirg Strategy requesting that item 3 be removed for discussion and observation. Allen Kephart spoke Yegarding Rainbow Disposal charges. Mayor MacAllister referred the matter to staff. Courtland Paul, Richard Ludlow, Joan Sharpe, and Madeline Koons requested permit parking for Intrepid Lane. George Hanna stated that he was running for the school besrd He spoke regarding the Club of Life. ORD NO 2619 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED , AS AMENDED - "RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT" AYES: Pattinson , Kelly, MacAllister, Finld % Bailey , Mandic carried by the following roll call vote: The City Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Public Works of proposed Ordinance No. 2619 - "AN`RDINANCE OF Tip CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDI NG THERETO NEW CHAPTER 10.42 ENTITLED , "RESIDENTIAL PARKING PEEWIT." A motion was made by Pattinson , seconded by Kelly", to remove Ordinance No. 2619 regarding "Residential Parking Permit'k,frozii the table. The motion NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas inserting the words "beach related". on motion by Bailey, second Finley , Co?Lcil approved introduction of Ordinance No. 2619, as amended, after reading b, title, by theollowing roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson , Kelly , MacAllister , Finley , Bailey,, Mandic t. Discussion was held regarding Section 10 ,+2.020 aiid the possibility of RES NO 5307 - ADOPTED, AS AMEND D - CITY-WIDE HOUSING STRATEGY The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Development Services transmitting Resoluion No. 5307 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING 4, HOUSING STRATEGY FORS: THE CITY." Following discussion , a m`.tion was made by Pattinson , seconded by Bailey, to adopt, as amended , Resol Lion No. 5307 ; amending item 3 to read "Allow second units with restrictions in either certain or specific single family neighborhoods " and ame ing item 11 to read "Evaluate the city's fee schedule as it affects the cost/of housing ." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson , Kelly , MacAllister , Finley , Bailey NOES: Mandic ABSENT: Thomas APPROVED ON 11/1/83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH, PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT : H iggins, Winchell , Livengood , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher , Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 19, 1983 , AND GENERAL PLANT CONFORMANCE NO. 83-8 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ITEM A-1: AYES: Porter , Erskine , Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins , Winc hell, Livengood ITEM A-2: AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSEN 'T': None ABSTAIN: T .)ne REGULAR AGENDA ITEM`,:: CvLDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83 A licant : M. Westland Com 3-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 83-563/ T6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-21.7 T6-/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-21 an , Lee Miller A request to create an 11 -lot industrial subdivision to enable " development of a mixed use industrial /commercial/office project with an exception for compact parking spaces , on 16.9 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Gothard Street at,! Heil Avenue. This was continued from the 8-16-83 meeting. Jim Barnes gave a staff presentation with slides and brief summary and additional suggested conditions of approval. The Chairman reopened the public hearing. Inez Neuenfeldt cited her reasons for opposing the appli,ant's request. She stated that due to the history of flooding in the area with an already overloaded pump station in the flood control channel that the project would further impact that situation. She also stated the possibility of noise from industrial tenants (delivery trucks) and possible chemical pollution. She passed pictures taken of previous flooding (October, 1982) to the Planning Commissioners. Further, she voiced disagreement with Items 2.8 and 3.1 in the negative declaration and requested thut a full EIR be made on the project. Cal Falle was opposed to the project. He stated that the Planning Commissioners "should protect us ". He said he did not want to live in a place that is pollu ed. Edward Garakian showed the Commissioners pictures he had taken during the flood of May, 1975. He made a slide presentation which included pictures of the backed up flood control channel. William Miller, the applicant, stated that the drainage problem originates in the residential project and not from the acantlot where he wishes to build. He disagreed with the suggestion to complete a full EIR, he felt the negative declaration addresses the project adequately. He did agree to irstall truck doors in a perpendicular position. He said he objects to the 15 foot setback, that it was unreasonable and will create problems for him. Fortes Geolghtsos stated his opposition citing the problem in the channel with overflow. He suggested raising the channel sides. Chairman Porter asked Les E',-z..iM from the Public Works Department if he analyzed the conclusions or r+.e flow requirements He said that he did and he agreed with the fine' t.y However, he further stated that the question of the channel was unrelated to the subdivision requested by the applicant. Chairman Porter suggested that this matter should go before the City Council. Joe Hrovat was opposed to the project, he cited the March, 1983 storm. Melvin Weisbart was opposed to the project and asked what control the City would have on the industrial that goes 4n. Richard Blindt was opposed and stated that the pump station did not work and that because the field was adjacent it "saved our houses ". Jack Cope was opposed co the project. He stated "Your.100 year flood means nothing". Willis Miller, father of the applicant, stated his position in favor of the application. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Livengood said that he sees it as two issues, one was the project itself and one is an -2-9-7-83 - P.C. inadequat pump station. Les Evans stated that according to a 1979 study, the channel is adequate. Commir,sioners asked for the design flow criteria. Mr. Evans stated it was designed to handle a 25 year storm. He said that during the last storm (March, 1983) 2.7 inches of rain fell in four hours and the channel did not top over its banks. Discussion continued on the project itself. Commissioner Schumacher felt that if you eliminate the truck doors you could mitigate noise from that activity. She further stated that a noise study could not be performed until tenants were actually in the building. Commissioner Livengood suggested requesting the City Council to instruct the City Administrator to study the problem of the channel regarding sufficient capacity and that review and suggestion be made on the master plan. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the City Council was presently investigating this problem. Mr. Evans stated it was a new problem to him. He said he did not see the need to go through the City Council, that he would investigate the matter and report back to the Planning Commission. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED PUBLIC WORKS STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO THEM ON THE FLOODING SITUATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-21 WAS APPROVED AND FOUND ADEQUATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-563 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . The size, depth, frontage and other design and improvement features of the subdivision are in conformance with City standards as well as the State Map Act and supplemental City subdivision ordinance. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time of the land use designation on the property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative larcel map received by the City of Huntington Beach on July 21, 1983, shall be the approved layout with the amendment of lot lines to show building pads only as reflected in the staff 's overlay dated September 7, 1983. 2. A parce ] map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Any required right -of-way and improvements on Heil Avenue and Gothard Street shall be dedicated and/or improved to applicable City and State standards ; cross sections of said arterials shall be drawn on the parcel map. Access. to the site shall be limited to three driveways onto Gothard Street and one driveway onto Heil Avenue; future access for buildings in Lot 11 shall be off of the internal circulation system. 5. A pavement evaluation of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue shall be conducted to determine if reconstruction or capping of existing streets is necessary. 6. Commercial-industrial type radius drives :;hall be constructed. 7. All existing wells shall be abandoned per City standards. 8. A separate onsite utility plan shall be submitted on 25" X 36" City linen. 9. Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development; proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. 10. Erosion control plan shall be subalitted for proposed and future development. 11. Acreage of site and number of lots shall be indicated on parcel map. 12. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system at the time said parcel is developed. 13. Sewage disposal shall he through the City of Huntington Beach sewage system at the time said parcel is developed. 14. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel is developed. AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahan,ir None 9-7-83 - P.C. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Higgins su-,°gested a six foot masonry wall at the rear property line. At this point in the meeting the audience began shouting out opinions from their seats. The Chairman, therefore, called for a recess and a sargeant-at-arms. The meeting resumed at 8:50 P.M. ON :OTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE C.U.P. WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: 5. A minimum 6 foot landscaped setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees and other vegetation of sufficient size and species to provide maximum screening and buffering from visual intrusion of the industrial use upon the adjacent residential use. Said landscape buffer shall be in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Structures abutting this landscaped buffer shall have no doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. For buildings built parallel to the westerly property line, a six (6) foot high masonry wall shall jog to the property line between the buildings." AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mrjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: N-)ne ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-18 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses in the general area, insofar as properties to the north, east and south are zoned and master planned for industrial use. 2. The proposed project complies with the provisions set forth in Article 953, MI Industrial Standards. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the land use element and the provisions set forth in the City's General Plan because it is an industrial development in a site that is located within the Gothard Industrial Corridor. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1983, and the elevations dated June 17, 1983, shall be the approve3 =ite plans and elevations. 2. Commercial/office uses allowed in the project shall be govtrned by the list of uses contained in Resolution No. 1313 and shall be located only in those buildings and suites so indicated on the approved site plan. Any change in the list of uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, ripe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 4. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 5. A minimum 6 foot, landscaped setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees and other vegetation of sufficient size and species to provide maximum screening and buffering from visual intrusion of the industrial use upon the adjacent residential use. Said landscape buffer shall be in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Structures abutting this landscaped buffer shall have no doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. For buildings built parallel to the westerly property line, a six (6) foot high masonry wall shall jog to the property line between the buildings. 6. The development shall comply with all requirements of the Huntington Beach, Fire Department. 7. The second story lofts on the commercial suites shall be used for storage/industrial only rather than as additional retail space. 8. A soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 9. The design anu materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Pi.,blic Works standards. 9-7-83 - P.C. lam. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air polluntants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for any use within the building. 13. The applicant shall submit a noise assessment study by an acoustical engineer identifying noise associated with future industrial activity and mitigation measures to reduce any adverse impacts; mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project design to bring noise to within the levels specified in the City's noise ordinance. 14. Within 50 feet of the westerly property line, building height shall not exceed 29 feet. Building height in the remainder of the project shall conform with the Ml development standard for height. 15. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Truck doors shall not be located within 25 feet of the westerly property line. 17. Odors from gases or other odorous matters shall not be in such quantities as to be offensive beyond the lot line of the use. 18. Toxic gases or matter shall not be emitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals or vegetation, or other forms of property, or which can cause any excissive soiling beyond the lot lines of the use. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter stated that the conditional exception was no longer necessary because of the adoption of the compact car parking ordinance by the City Council. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-26 WAS TABLED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES, Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD RESOLUTION NO. 1313 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -7-9-7-83 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, SchumachLr, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-9/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-28 (Continued from 8 -16-83) Gerald S Golob, AIA A request for a change of zone allowing a "Fisherman's Supply Center" with the "Q"C4 zone on property located south of Warner, west of "A" Street. Michael Strange gave the staff presentation and recommended denial of the applicant's request as the traffic study from the applicant arrived too late for staff to review it. The public hearing was opened. Gerry Golob, the applicant, requested approval. He said that he believed a one story building should be much preferred over a large three story office building that would produce a shadow over adjacent residents. He said he has a one-way traffic situation that would bring traffic off of Beach Boulevard and would eliminate ingress and egress off of "A" Street. He said he felt sure that the proposed use would not bring any detrimental effect into the area. Commissioner Erskine asked the applicant if the tenant planned to sell live bait at the store. Mr. Elsen from Fisherman's Supply, stated that there would be no live bait sold. He went on to list some of the items that would be stocked such as lures, rod and reels, fowl weather gear, compasses, etc. Phillip Oliver, one of the owners of the property, stated that over the last three years the only other interested user was a medical-type facility and both were considered low volume as far as customers. He asked the Commission to approve the zone change without the traffic study and explained the reason for the delay in getting the report. He said it was difficult for busy engineers to even work on such a small project. Jim Murtha,, Mr. Oliver's partner, passed around a real estate report for the.perusa-L of the Commission, which showed a glut of office space. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked Mr. Strange tc clarify the type of report that was needed. He said it was a comparison traffic study from a similar use in San Diego showing traffic volume. He said, further, that the original qualifying suffix only allowed office-professional uses. Les Evans stated that,Public Works had no problem with the traffic study that was submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Livengorl asked what guarantee was there against a larger project going in at that location. Secretary Palin stated that the Commission could specify the maximum size and square footage of the building. To Subject CITY O F HUN T ING TO BE INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Jim Barnes Acting Planner Senior CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563, CE 83-26 AND ND 83-21 INDUSTRIAL PARK - N.E. CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND HEIL AVENUE From Date CH Glen K. Godfrey Deputy Director August 22, 1983 Please be sure we get a report from Public Works and the applicant's engineer relative to hydrology and grading questions asked; specifically, how the pump station will be affected by the new development. Provide a condition in the CUP which will include the "build to suit" area as requiring a 45 ft. setback and landscape buffer to be triggered when the area develops. All future development will be approved by the Planning Commission. P 'ride a condition relative to noise impacts - maybe report by acoustical e, ieer, orientation of buildings, no openings nor traffic allowed along rear adjacent to 45 ft. buffer, sound walls or berm. Specify minimum size trees, etc, GKG:js CITY HUTS T - B EAC H 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714) 5359241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 att a. (S) (,q Mr_ Lee Miller M. Westland Co. 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , California 92683 Subject: Drainage study for proposed mixed use industrial development at Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. (C.U.P. #83-18) Dear Lee: As you know, the Planning Commission continued its con- sideration of your application for an industrial development at Gothard Street and Heil Avenue because of concerns about the impact of storm water runoff from the proposed development on the adjacent flood control channel, drainage pump and res - idential properties. Before the staff and Planning Commission take further action on your application we request that you submit information on the amount of anticipated storm water runoff from the project site, the drainage pattern from the site and the likely im- pacts of this water on the capacities of the adjacent flood control channel and storm drain pump station. We will have to receive this information from you by Monday, August 29, 1983 in orc,!r for the staff to make a recommendation for the September 7, 1:83 Plann:.ag Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 536-5271. Sincerely, Carol Inge Assistant Planner CI:jh ME SERVICES Z?a 1NTER,DE?ARTMEi'tT COMMUN1C T.Ofv I ING 10Y171.1111 Llptjr on Beach,, CA 8 Charles W. Thompson City Administrator From `- Paul E. Cook N %Director of Public Works Surojeel Nei hbor QQd Flooding 'orth of Date September 16, 1983 `e eil and West of Go d ow During the recent Planning Commission consideration of a proposed industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard. Street and Heil Avenue, a large group of citizens appeared to express their concerns about the drainage impacts of the project. The Public Works Department reported to the Planning Commission that the storm drain capacity serving the proposed industrial site was adequate and would not create a flooding hazard. Residents of the adjacent sL-odivisi.ln were not convinced, however, and presented lengthy and emotional testimony on a May, 1975 flood, an October, 1982 flood and the March 1, 1983 flood. The City does not maintain records of emergency call-outs for flooding probleas prior to 1980 so the 1975 occurrence could not, be investigated. The City rain- fall record recorded no measurable rain in October, 1982. We are sure, hocvev- what happenec: during the March 1, 1983 storm. According to accounts from residents, the Heil Avenue pump station coul': not koep up with the flows during the March 1, 1983 storm and several homes ecr tdio, inlet structures were evacuated. Fortunately, the flood water never act,:, reached the homes or garages and did not cause significant damage. Acc:ordina to the City's pump. station maintenance personnel, the Heil Avenue pimp 7,, atic ,I, was working properly but simply fell behind during the :March 1, 1983 101?-year storm event. The Heil neighborhood can expect similar flooding to occ,u: lurir ? future storms of equal or greater magnitude since the storm drain system vi11 be operating at capacity. The storm channel to the rear of the homes e; Heil was also operating near capacity during the March 1, 1983 storm, but did not overtop into the residential neighborhood. The City'- storm drain facilities are designed to handle a 25-year storn. YY11 storm events exceed the 25-year storm, pumps will begin to fall behind, storm drains will back up and streets will begin to flood. As the storm event apps then the 100-year storm, channels may overtop their banks, flooding of low lx*Lngar"Ias will occar and property damage may -esult. On March 1, 1983, for the first i in recorded history (and most of our lifetimes) Huntington Beach ictuaLly ex- perienced rainfall intensity that equalled or exceeded accepted design standa:. s. Statistically, it won't happen again for 100 years. Although the pimp station maintenance personnel reported no probI.ms with thL Heil Pump Station in recent years, street maLitenance personnel do have a recri•r:. of responding to a call-out on October 1, 1981 in response to a flooding pro}_' ::t. Rainfall records show aboW. an inch of rain on teat day and i,r may be -;zit the October, 1982 flooding that the Magellen/Sunlight residents mentioned w-s s.. ;1. the October, 1981 storm. Apparently, at that time the sump pu ;_o was not opei,} ing and the pump station water storage area ar.? street drainitu-' have bG o ftr'. before t?:e main pumps star red. If i-his in fact v;s«s L ho case, St--,et flcx,dincj HUNTINGTON BEACH VELOP Memo to Charles W. Thompson Neighborhuod Flooding N/o Heil & W /o Gothard September 16, 1983 Page 2 could have occurred during an intensive rainfall before the pumps caught up. A recurring problem which all our storm drain pump stations have been subject to is the lack of automatic controls to regulate the number of units pumping and pump speed to adjust to an intense rainfall. Most of our p7 -7 p are designed L:o ha ve pumps come on as water levels in the storage area (forebay) reach certain levels and speed up as the water reaches even higher levels. We are presently replacing the water level controls with automatic control systems which will sense the speed at which water is entering the pump station and adjust pump speed accordingly. In this way the pumps should not fall be.di,.d in a storm of less than the design intensity (about every 25 years). The automatic control system is being installed in the Heil Avenue P ump Station right now. The sump pump in the Heil Station is also being zcplaced due to complaints that it was too noisy. It would probably be to the City's advantage to install recording charts in all the storm drain pump stations which would record when pumps come on and turn uff, how high forebay water levels rise before the pumps cane on, whether or not the pumps actually started, and how long they pump to get ahead of the incoming f'.ows. We could add these charts to all our pump stations for about. $23,000.00. In an August 31, 1983 memorandum prepared for the Planning Carr ission, the Cir•_x Engineer stated that the storm channel separating the residential property at.,? the industrial property was designed to accommodate the developee•ent cf the project area. His statement was based on the conclusions expressed in the Master Plan of Drainage prepared fcuthe City by L.D. King Engi-neering. Because of the considerable testimony from citizens that from their observation the channel was undersized, the L. D. King report was reviewed for accuracy. Tnc Engineering Division staff found that L. D. King had used an incorrect slope for the channel analysis which makes a significant difference in the channel capacity. Using the correct slope leads to a full depth condition in the channel of 7.83' which is nearly 10" higher than the top of the existing channel. In addition, the 6' x 10,' box culvert under Heir Avenue also appears to be uncerdesigned based on staff's calculations. I suggest we bring in a consultant who specializes in channel design and revia the storm channel and box culvert in question. I expect that the consultant will reconsiend raising the channel walls and enlarging the box culvert. There appear to be about $150,000 in drainage area funds available to ;make improve- ..ents in this District plus an estimated $38,000 payah'- by the developer of the industrial property. PBC:LE:7y cc J. P L. Evans AXES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-563/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-21 Applicant: M. Westland Company, Lee Miller, Partner A request to create an 11-lot industrial subdivision to enable development of a mixed use industrial/commercial/office project with an exception for compact parking at property located at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. Jim Barnes gave the staff presentation. He suggested a revision to the staff report on Condition #4 to allow for three rtriveways onto Gothard and one onto Heil, and recommended deleting Condition #5, relating to noise, as it had no bearing on this case. There was brief discussion on Lot 11. It was discovered that the negative declaration was omitted from the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Lee Miller, the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He said he intends to put additional buildings on Lot 11 in conformance with City standards. He further agreed with the revisions to conditions suggested by staff. A gentleman from the audience asked the question, "Why do you let us face a heavy industrial zone?" He favored a greenbelt area. He said with the rain, we had a lake in the vacant lot; where does the run off go? Idez Neuenfeldt wanted the condition dealing with noise left in. She said that she did not believe that a setback alone would mitigate the noise. She also was opposed to the application because of the water runoff problem. Edward Garakian, a resident on Magellan, stated his opposition also citing the water runoff as a problem. Forges Georgaiso stated his opposition problem and also complain?.ng about air The public hearing was closed. again repeating the water pollution from future tenants. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked the applicant if he was going to grade at one time or in phases. The applicant replied that the rough grading would be done all at once; that the soils report advises him doing as little grading as possible. He said further that the grading plan was not completed yet. Commissioner Winchell stated that it appeared from the public testimony that drainage was a real concern and asked if Public Works Department was involved. Jim Barnes said that they were involved in the review of the application but found no comments from them on the subject of drainage. Chairman Porter requested a calculation as far as the runoff, what kind of safety margin exists plus data on the pump -5- 8-16-83 P.C. station. Commissioner Livengood suggested an added condition on the tentative parcel map of a landscape buffer with plan to be submitted to the Commission for review and approval. Some members of the audience asked questions but the Chairman stated that the ?hearing had been closed. Commissioner Livengood also suggested leaving condition #5 in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Higgins believed that the buildings could be, oriented to mitigate any noise problems. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION 83-21, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-18, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-563 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 83-26 WERE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A COPY OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (Commissioner Livengood suggested that a copy of the negative declaration be mailed to all the persons who addressed the Commissioners tonight.) AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None C-2. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City o° Huntington Beach Mike Adams began the discussion of the 10 deferred items a-- outlined in the staff report. 1. Maximum Building Height - District 2 Staff is suggesting that heights in District 2 be restricted to 35 feet and no more than 3 stories for less than a full block and to 45 feet and no more than 4 stories for a full block. Commissioner Winchell inquired how the height would be measured and was assured that it would be fror, grade of street level, as a new means of calculating the subterranean parking allowance had been used. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.4.04 AND 4.4.08 WERE APPROVED AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livenngood ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher 2. Intensities within District 3 Mike Adams reported that maximum FAR for one-half block would be 2; for one-half block to a full block, 2.5; for a full block, 3.25; and for multi-block development, 3.5. Staff has made a change in the calculation for FAR; it will now be calcu- lated on gross acreage except that the resultant floor area may not exceed by more than 15 percent of what would be allowed if the net site area were used for calculation. The FAR's will apply to the entire project area. In conjunction with that, staff has re-drafted the height restrictions for District 3. In the old text heights, FAR, and coverage were all handled as one; now coverage is handled in 4.5.08 and the mt, imum for the entire District 3 will be 50 percent and to offset that structures taller than 4 stories will have an additional 2.5 percent of the net lot area in public open space for each story over 4. The discussion of the intensity of District 3 covers the intensity but also heights, upper story setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and min- imum open space requirements. Staff is also asking the Commission to reconsider its previous deletion of he "residential" designation from this district. Mr. Adams also informed the Commission that heights now proposed in this district are as follows: Less than one-half block . . .3 stories One-half to full Mock . . . .4 stories Full block n/o Main . . . . . .6 stories Full block s/o Main . . . .8 stories Multi-block n/o Main . . . .8 stories Multi-block s/o Main . . .12 stories In the diocussion on heights, Commissioner Livengood expressed the desire to reduce the full block north of Main to 4 stories, the full block south of Main t - stories, the multi-block north of Main to 6, and the or _-block, south of Main to 8 stories. Commissioner Winche__ concurred with this aaproach. Commissioner Mirjahangir also agreed with the reduction in heights, saying he would like to see Areas 3 and 5 tied together. He noted that if added heights induce new devel-pnent in Area 3 it will reduce the chance of development in Area 5. Mike Adams conceded that the Plan does provide greater incentive for District 3 because it is hoped that higher intensite developments in District 3 will halp in getting public improvements in conjunc- tion with the pierhead area. Another node where these incentives are needed is in District 6, where the "super-block" is located. Commissioner Porter indicated that he also would be amenable to Livengood's suggestion, noting that he would have personally been even more restrictive in terms of how the heights are stepped down from north to south. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION. 4.5.04 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: Less than one-half block - 3 stories One-half to full block - 4 stories Full block n/o Main - 4 stories Full block s/1 Main - 6 stories Multi-block n/o Main 6 stories, Multi-block s/o Main - 8 stories AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher 8-16-83 - P.C. in a brief discussion staff indicated that they are still comfort- able with the FAR`s for this district even with the reduced heights. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that S. 4.5.07, relating to setbacks from 6th Street, is no longer necessary given the above action. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SFC7ION 4.5.07 WAS DELETED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.5.08 - Maximum lot coverage. S. 4.5.09 -Minimum public open space requirements. Mike Adams clarified site coverage by saying that the FAR for a full block will be reduced to 3.0. Staff will recalculate all the others to assure that they are still workable. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.5.08 AND 4.5.09 WERE APPROVED WITH THE AMENDED 3.0 FAR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Wincheil, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Norte ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.5.12 Pedestrian Overpass This was an item deferred for failure to agree at the last meeting on the inclusion of "underpass" in the title of the section. Brief 3iscussion ensued. GN MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.5.12 WAS APPROVED AS TITLED IN THE TEXT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Porter ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher DISTRICT 5 S. 4.7.04 Mike Adams reported that staff is recommending the following: Less than half-block - 3 stories, 1.5 FAR Half-block to full - 3 stc-ies, 2.0 FAR Full block - 6 storms, 2.5 FAR The Commission discussed treatment of the portion of District 4 that had previously been included in District 5, and staff recommended that this action be reconsidered and the area re- inserted in 4. After reviewing the nature of the uses allowed in each district, Commissioner Livengood requested that a decision be made on the maximum number of stories to be permitted in the district and then the matter of reassigning the half blocks in question could be aecided. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL 5.4.7.04 WAS APPROVED WITH THE STORIES FOR A FULL BLOCK REDUCED TO 4 AND THE 8-16-83 - P.C. MAXIMUM FAR TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Win hFll, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Commissioner Livengood discussed the four-story height limit which has now been placed on District 5 and indicated that staff's recommendation seems to provide a buffer zone; he con - cluded that perhaps the area in question might provide a better cushion if replaced in District 4. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRICTS 4 AND 5 WERE APPROVED AS OUTLINED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Commissioner Livengood asked that the Commission take a straw vote on the reconsideration of the maximum FAR to be allowed in District 3 based on the Commission's action in lowering the allowable building heights. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF 47AS DIRECTED TO RE-ASSESS THE, MAXIMUM FAR BASED ON THE ADJUSTED HEIGHTS IN DISTRICT 3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 5 - Intensities for District 6 Mike Adams reported that the following is being recommended by staff: 100 feet or less 2 stories,1.25 FAR 101 feet up to half block 3 stories,1.5 FAR One-half to full block 3 stories,2.0 FAR Full Block 4 stories,2.25 FAR He informed the Commission that there is a good potential for con- solidation and that major developments could occur with the City working in conjunction with property owners. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE DENSITIES FOR DISTRICT 6 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 6 - Intensities for District 7 Staff is recommending here a maximum FAR of 3.0; there is no height limit being proposed, but there is n: maximum lot coverage of.50 percent. The Commission was reminded that it had removed the resi- dential designation from this district. After extensive discussion, -9-8-16-83 - P.C. it was the consensus of the Commission that a height limitation should be placed on th`i3 district and that such limit should reason- ably relate to what is being applied to abutting,districts . ON MOTION BY LIEVNGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION TM- POSED A MAXIMUM BUILDING H-,,!G.HT OF 8 STORIES IN DISTRICT 7 AND DIR- ECTD STAFF TO RETITLE S. 4.9.03 TO READ "MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND INTEN- SITY," BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.9.07 Mike Adams offered wording for the dedication of right-of-way which had been contested by the Huntington Beach Company, owner of the subject property, as follows: "The dedication of a 20 foot corri- dor between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway may be required for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Pacific Coast Highway. This requirement may be waived if an alternative public amenity is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City. A proposal for an alt- ernative public amenity must be approved by the Planning Commission." Mr. Adams said one of the reasons the corridor is important is that be- cause of the traffic volume on Lake Street the bike lane is going to have to be removed and a logical place for that bike lane would be on the old right-of-way abandoned by the railroad. Brief discus- sion took place. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE WORDING CONCERNING THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS SUGGESTED 7BOVE BY STAFF WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell,.Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher I tem8 Mike Adams asked that the same wording as applied above be applied to District 8 , directly to the north of District 7. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ACTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mi.rjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 9 Intensity in District 9 Mike Adams said that a maximum FAR of 4 is being proposed here, and staff can incorporate upper story setbacks off Beach and Pacific Coast Highway or the backage road if the Commission de- sire. _10-8-16-83 - P.C. Tom Livengood expressed the feeling that some height limita- tion should be imposed on this district, as it should not result in taking the primary focus of the Specific Plan away from Area 3 Since an 8 story limit was placed on Area 7, he felt that some logical step-down in heights should be considered. Mr. Adams explained that staff feels that this area could prob - ably handle the highest structures since is is a large area and could provide substantial setbacks. Staff and the Commission reviewed the elevation differential between this district, District 3, and other nearby districts. It was concluded that because of this differential a higher structure could be placed within this district than those in 3 and still not visually appear to be higher. Commissioner Porter said that he agreed with staff that this parcel has the greatest potential for hi.ghr'_se buildings and would be the most appropriate place in the Plan for a large hotel facility, both because of the size of the site and the available traffic circulation. He suggested that 12 stories might be an appropriate height allowance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO PUT A IIEIGHT LIMITATION ON DISTRICT 9 OF 10 STORIES. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Further discussion of the area took place, including the pos - sibility of reducing both FAR and the building footprint; however, no conclusion was arrived at and the item deferred by consensus of the Commission. Item 10 4.12.02 in District 10 Staff informed the Commission that the Plan reads "Maximum height shall be 25 feet and 2 stories above the piece level. Heights on the pier shall be limited to one story, with exceptions forlife- guard towers and other facilities necessary for public safety." Several of the commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the 2 story provision and discussion took place on separating the area north and south of the pier by placing different regulations on each. Staff explained that if an overpass is to be provided it will be necessary to have a second story on the beach side of the highway. Commissioner Winchell noted that this would block off views of the ocean and was assured that the construction would not be a continu- ous line of buildings. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS S. 4.12.02 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT 2 STORIES WOULD BE ALLOWED ABOVE PIER LEVEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, 1 STORY ON THE PIER, AND 1 STORY ABO"E PIER LEVEL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE : AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher -11- 8-1 6-83 -- P.C. At this p oint in the meeting the Commission decided to return la the re7ular agenda. Staff will update and re-do the FAR's as directed and Commissioner Higgins requested that staff prepare some graphic depiction of what the Commission has done on heights on Pacific Coast Highway in Districts 3, 7, and 9. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY IiIGGINS THE COMMISSION CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO A SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING ON AUGUST 23, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins , Livengood , Porter , Winchell,Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher NOTE: ALL MOTIONS SET FORTH IN THESE MINUTES ARE STRAW VOTES ONLY, PENDING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-24 initiated b Cit of Huntin ton Beach A request to amend Sections 9940, "Expiration of Tentative Tract and Tentative Parcel. Maps ", 9941(a), "Extension", 9941(b), "Time Limit on Extensions" of the ordinance code from a maximum of two years to a maximum of three years for extensions of time on tentative tract maps and parcel maps. The proposed code amendment will also revise and clarify wording contained in the above described code sections. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this matter, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY 1IINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINSCODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-24 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahingir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Brief discussion took place on the progress of letter to the City Council from the Planning Commission on an increase in stipend. Commissioner Livengood requested that the Lee Miller application be placed first on the September 7, 1983 agenda. -12- 8-16-83 - P.C. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED PLAN '9a Sun is over the tops of buildings by 8:00 AM for most of the year and in December by 9:00 AM. Sun travels across the sky substantially to the south because of the city's latitude. Therefore buildings would put homes in shadow for only a few minutes at dawn. # About one quarter of the homes have fences at this height. The remainder have fences at the lower height used in measuring angles. scALE l IN, - !0 Pr, ALTERNATE 1 - 6 ft. landsca e buffer lus buildin hei ht limited to 1 ft. within 0 ft, of ro ert line. 29' 4o' a 40, ALTERNATE 2 - Standard industrial desi n but with no truck doors or trucks at back of buildin s and no landsca e buffer Landscape buffers have nit been re uired in n arb and recentl a roved simular ro'ects. 1J• ALTERNATE 4 ft. setback fro residential and buildin hei ht limited to 2 eet at back Imo- 15, ---b. 4S' C I T v or- HuicruNG T ON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Gail Hutton City Attorney Q James W. Palin, Director Development Services Subject ADDITTONAL BACK-UP MATERIAL TO 'to REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES NO. 2404 Here is additional information regarding the zoning on the flood control channel west of Gothard Street and north of Heil Avenue. Ordinance No. 772 rezones the subject property including the flood control channel to Ml. Resolution No. 104 is the Planning Commis- sion resolution on the same zone case. Also attached is the deed transfering the property now developed as the flood control channel from Mr. and Mrs. Murdy to the City of Huntington Beach. The legal description contained in this deed clearly places the channel with- in the area that was established in Ordinance No. 772 as an Ml district. If you have any questions, pease contact me. I await your response. JWP•CT:sr Attachments 0RDII;Ai4 C E 1,10 772 All ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF iUNTIUGTOII 13BACH AI.:ENDIITG THE HUiTTII?GTOI, BEACH ORDINAPTCE CODE BY AI:EITDII'TG SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-11 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Sectional District I,1ap 23-5-11, which :sectional District I.iap is designated Section 9211.39 Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and said code section as amended shall read in words and figures as follows: ( 23-5-11 ) Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published by one insertion in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper, printed, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach, California and 30 days after the adoption thereof, the same shall take effect and be in force. PASSED AIID /DOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, this 2Oth:day of June Ord. No. 772 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange ) ss City of Huntington Beach ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting Cit• Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five; that the foregoing ordinance was read,to said City Council at a regular meet- ing thereof held on the 6th day of June, 1960, and was agiin read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2001 day of June, 1960, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Wells Lambert Stewart Waite Gisler NOES: Councilmen: None. ABSENT: Councilmen: None. City Clerk an ex -of icio erc of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 41 PLANNING ZONING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-11 CITY OF IIUNTINGTON I314-ACII .. w.c¢ a ...u .a n. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NEIL 99211.39 ICTLI ° ••: •••un.. - LEG ticmo llu SUFFIX LEXFUD VJ\SMELTZER 4 Al-X AIX ...M(, JV.( MSC O.o b )R I MI pRIf,tdoi"fpo' I- I 410 RI E AI- MI_X MI-X t ,.+ ,- OOLoev wce - ^ - In Li LIX MFX 3 ..u.: r ..crow u e....r Ml X .+n: w QI .I-XX ?A'_'< -MIX a a acc. I LI o FiX MIX .G a AI-X MIX MI-X SIX E L AVE AF X A I-X 5 A I-X AI-X AVE 0 c2 AI-X J ICE.3OLUTIOIv 110 104 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COE ISSION' OF THE CITY OF HUNTIi1G`1011 BEACH MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZONE CASE NO 116 ',WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, has held one public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review Zone Case No 116, AND WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission on the basis of Land Use Surveys, Master Plan of Streets and Highways, Land Use Plan, the existing P.E.R.R. Right--of-way, the proposed San Diego Freeway, and consideration given to the general public, does make the following determination. That the applicant's property submitted for change of zone does fulfill all the requisites deemed necessary for establishment of high type industrial development and further that the City is in need of a balance between residential and industrial development which proposed zoning would establish a favorable and desirable per - centage of city acreage available for industry at suit- able locations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Section 1. That the City Planning Commission as a result of study and consideration concludes that the applicant's proposed changes of zone are sound planning in terms of achieving a sa- tisfactory balance between industrial, RCSOLUTICi1 I10 104 1 commercial and rc:iidential devuiopmorit. And that special study sessions having been held will enable the applicant to further ascertain the problems and obligations which must be assumed. Section 2. That the City Planning Commission recommends approval of Zone Case No 116 to the City Council. Section 3. That the Secretary shall certify and attest to.the passage and adoption of this reso- lution by a two thirds majority vote of the members of the Planning Commission. REGULARLY PA$3ED AND ADOPTED by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on the 19th day of April. 1960. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Presson, Letson, Doutt, Kaufman, Thompson, Stang, Chairman Bazil. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. ATTEST: Y' ", ``I c:' liffor E. `l2ripp Robert Bazil Secretary Chairman DS 83-1.00 White Clly Attorney Canary City Clerk Pink City Adminh, Goldenrod Departmental Department Development Services 's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney. tilitiBf.'1 <tl3#E> j request in the City Attorney itsrsWrsgras;the request. Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. [] Insurance [ 1 Other &desotartioa (j. Bonds (itract/Agreement PC] Opinion "edubits must be attached, or this request will be returned to you. Exhibits Attached CONDITIONAL UBE PEEtMIT NO. 83-1€1) #tE: Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -l8 (appealed to city Council on 10-10-83) - a proposed industrial development located at the north west corner of Trail Avenue and Gothard Street. Please prepare a legal opinion to address the followings 1. According to the zoning ordinance, what would the required buiid.i:ia setback be along the west property line of the proposed industrial building site? (Please note that the property is separated from, the residential area to the west by a 30-foot--wide flood control channel (see at-t..ac'_: assessor's parcel map). It is our interpretation that the channel j zoned M1, Light Industrial, because the west boundary of the 1,11 din- trict coincides with the east boundary of residential Tract No. (1,1,81 and said tract does not include the flood control channel (see attaci ments )a If a setback is required from the wrest property line, could the City Council approve a proposal that allowed something less than the required setback at its November 21, 1983 meeting, and what special procedures, if any, would need to be followed (e.g., advertising, refer back to the Planning Conmiission, etc.)? Attachments If for Council Action, P¢ende deadlines`r-- Council meetings 11, 1983 21, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAL.. REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES If not for Council action, desired completion date Signature: 3EC.23,' T5S., R.1/W. 'L J M / 200 , 29 28 '1SBE8rE-30-/16-/ 30 SBE BTL -30-/16- k U P. M. 30-1 GOTHARO 8 434C. 27 $5E8T2-30-/26-pOR 2 /.5' 7bo PAR 2 P. M. 30-I 28 IS' SBE871 -50-/l6-pCR5 4.6564 C. Goo' PM. 4 - 45 29 1,80 AC.2.262AC.(C/ I42'- 12 .o EN,SEC.23-5-1, LLJ L, BAEE 60 , /7.07 AC. 14.14 R STORM DRA/A/ 36 //' CHANNEL NOTE- ASSESSOR'S BLOCK Q PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN IN CIRCLES STREET lL8- CITY 37 CWNTY OF ORANGEDevelopment Serve BOOK142 PAGE 12 JU 19L ASSESSORS MAP RECEIVEL PLANNINGrSECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE' 102, 614, q1, 111.11?. M. 2,1, 262.2,x.277. 222.224 . 237. 701 1..5l.lOI.:Ol, 5D1.!lT,f£..,.F1i5 - 4f.-54, 11-35 ,16-i5.11. f[, 5F K -J fF £l.4_ f. ?, 5.14 69.20,11 .24 1154 41.2. Fi42.,0 2. 74. lF10 -, pp:O-B: n T•5•S w,n T11r..u.r +r.n sG vs K•w-It t., ust,.4.•'n!.. ECINGER C4 RI S ow6sm[s - cn = RRIS0ggEN00p RI l1ARlRHi I Cq r LR CF-C RI RI RIRI r ft c 'I NOOIILILU R ,", II RI RI iv n .A4Err1INt-, _ RI J'I_JL_Ltiwf Rf }NL RI MI rsP[..v+P MI' MI 23-5-I I RI -Cl £MO0 TED 14RCN 1, 1960 CITY OOUHCIL CRQINAN:E lip 154 RI 221106 LOWW RI RI 1Y t £1252622. 0AHUIE RI RI RI !FINE DO RI ' CF-R DM 26 1401E in[ xa pnl• x^x' .rte r a nrrn n2xr or w•. o ,[ ct2rtR I EG FAip L J P[alp[H,IPL x .awt_ (ii"CT tJ pCm2,pvvtPV.l c15ty Y,'x011 Pu R[sPIrNCE 15 I[r cnIUI'in, ,USIkcss plslgv lR ArpHr Ua2irtcruerHG Plsl :[Y UAIL PfMr d PPr RCNr Y Dar rne•k 4urt [_n CIV:ltl• VLAll" IauPY .6 7 0,411 DD ' C^7 1 LAS Pm2rF+sVUL. 110,10 n 2 0 (6 riM DIM , ctTn tics PF[V11 (Il 02 Savt[i4 ([i[f L t racellr [slrttrct11cx1 CIS1F'cr fCF_R] S - IIIrs IP[CREATICHP I.l DIS v- 10VUlyTY rADti,tl IC 7 I[ICIS'ROT AVE RR1 rra 0110`0 010/2 aK r +i i° - ° f1,0=1 6 1 RI PrDO 1 w 2. C4 Ir R2 I £[RZ 1-R3 4 Irl as c cC po--'-'--- sa • 1 -r 4 R3 rR R3CF-E 1 R2If R2 R2 AV E II ij A i FD ROTNINL, ALL TIES 6ONE,SFT S.ET BY INT. Mg Ai N W [OR SEC Z; 5 11 -(-4IU(,C AVCUU[- I, __r K 81, 15* GS- F. I L64'(L PER TR. 4064) 0. r PEe PM_23U, fl I.F•T PER TR 4380 M 1. 1181 43 44 0 - V. vi N s+c F-- uJ r -Z x•-1 z X t _ (t uJ1' PER T. 4P4) 1 C, I L A V C° (F HC-T. N6, KU FITS N,(&-SE_TIE5 F(R.6.Ci. A/5.IIC1Z,P6 111 ALL {A(C. Ai W 114 (OR. SE(. 1i;4 11 0 U N D A R Y /VVG A61+ y,.,- PM N.T ICES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER.DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION r*, James W. Palin, Director Development Services P.O. Box 190 Huntington- I,'6 92648 From Paul E. Cook, Directo Public Works Subject Conditional Use Permit 83-18 Date October 20, 1983 As you requested, we reviewed the two issues about runoff raised by the City Council at their October 10, 1983 meeting. The first issue, as you stated it,. was: 1. The Council raised the possibility of draining the project site into the channel south of Heil Avenue Would this be possible and, if so, how would it be accomplished? To what extent would this mitigate potential adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood to the west? Without a detailed hydrologic study, the answer to this question is not certain. There is a 27" storm drain in Heil Avenue which runs along the south side of the street and gravity flows into the storm drain channel just south of the box structure under Heil Avenue. It appears that it would be possible to drain the industrial site south to Heil. A larger line, to replace the 27" existing storm drain, could be installed by the developer to handle the existing drainage as well as the additional drainage from the industrial site. Assuming that the channel will be upgraded to handle design flows, the effect of draining the project site into the channel south of Heil Avenue will probably have no effect on the residential neighborhood north of Heil and west of the industrial site. If the channel is not upgraded, directing flows downstream of Heil will reduce the flow in the channel adjacent to the residential area by about 32-15 cubic feet per second (or an inch or two of depth in the channel). The second issue you requested a response to is: 2. The residents suggested that if the channel were to overtop its banlcc today, at least part of the overflow would run onto the vacant industrial property and that once the industrial property is graded for development, all overflow from the channel would run into the residential neighborhood. Is this a correct assessment and, if so, what mitigation measures could be imposed on the proposed development to prevent this from occurring? Engineering staff contacted the developer to determine how he intends to grade the site. At this time, no grading plans are available. Apparently, the developer is awaiting the outcome of the appeal of his project before ^.ommencing design. It appears that the site could be graded to drain to the south or to the east. It could be graded to be lower or higher than the top of the flood control levee. Or it could be graded to drain to an internal sump and be pumped to the channel. The Council may simply wish to include -a condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel overtop its banks, overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west sides. PEC:LE:jy IF Pag 12 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 Mar theis spoke regarding the City-Wide Housing Strategy requesting that item 3 e removed for discussion and observation. Allen Ke rt spoke regarding Rainbow Disposal charges, Mayor MacAll star referred the matter to staff. Courtland Paul , Richard Ludlow , Joan Sharpe , and Madeline Koons re ested permit parking f r Intrepid Lane. George Hanna stated that he was running for the school hoard . a spoke regarding the Club o Life. ORD NO 2619 - INTRODUC ON APPROVED, AS AMENDED "RESIDEN AL PARKING PF.RMIT" The City Clerk presented communication from the Depart ant of Public Works of proposed Ordinance No. 2 19 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEAC MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDIN THERETO NEW CHAPTER 10.42 ENTITLED , "RESIDENTIAL KING PERMIT." A motion was made by Pattinson , conded by Kelly to remove Ordinance No. 2619 regarding "Residential Parkin Permit" fro the table . The motion carried by the following roll call ote: AYES: Pattinson , Kelly, MacAlliate Fin y , Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas Discussion was held regarding Section 0 .42 020 and the possibility inserting the words "beach related". On motion by Bailey , second Finley , Council app oved introduction of Ordinance No. 2619 , as amended , after read ' g by title , by he following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson , Kelly, Ma llister , Finley , Bai ey , Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas RES NO 5307 - ADOPTED, S AMENDED - CITY -WIDE ROUSING STRA EGY The City Clerk pres ted a communication from the Director o Development Services transmitt ' g Resolution No. 5307 "A RESOLUTION OF T E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RU TINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A HOUSING STRATEGY FOR HE CITY." Following disc ssion , a motion was made by Pattinson,' seconded by ailey, to adopt , as ame ded , Resolution No. 5307 ; amending item 3 to read "Al w second units with strictions in either certain or specific single family neighborho ds" and amending item 11 to read "Evaluate the city's fee s hedule as it a€ cts the cost of housing ." The motion carried by the followin roll call vo a: AYES: Pattinson , Kelly , MacAllister , Finley , Bailey NOES: Mandic ABSENT: Thomas Page 11 - Council Minu tes - 10/10/83 Mary Baroglio s poke regarding noise from delivery and garbage trucks, smell from garbage and the sight of trash . She requested that Council approve a 45' setback from the east side of the flood control channel. Cal Faello stated that he wanted the proposed project to proceed but with modifications regarding setback, landscape buffers a nd traffic controls. Edward Garakian spoke regarding flood control, security and building height. Inez Neuenfeldt presented pictures to Council and spoke regarding debris, outside storage , garbage , building height, setback and traffic on Heil Avenue. Councilman Pattinson suggested that staff inspect the area the next day for code violations. DeanLitko spoke regarding setback and height restrictions. He questioned whether the flood control channel was part of the M1 zoning. Robert Hardin spoke regarding flooding of streets . He spoke regarding the proposed building height. Tim Paone , representing M. Westland Company , compared the proposed. project to other projects in the area with regard to conditions and restrictions pertaining to setback and height. Discussion was held regarding the matter. Discussion was held between Council , Glen Godfrey and the City Attorney regarding the zoning of the flood control channel . Discussion was held regarding flooding , setback and building height. A motion was made by Pattinson , seconded by Finley , to continue the public hearing open to November 21, 1983 , to direct staff to return with a report regarding the legal questions on the zoning of the flood control channel as well as a report regarding the timing of improvements , regarding the flood control channel. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Kelly , MacAllister , Finley , Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT : Thomas PUBLIC COMMENTS C Alexander , Sall Alexander , Dorothy Grubbs, Arnold Alvarez regarding revention in the southern part of the city. Dean Albright spoke against ving the equest trail from Bolsa Chica Linear Park to the Santa Ana River. Alice Bowes requested Council support the concept o volunteers riding in the Rose Parade . S ated that the parade theme was "Vo s". Pa 9 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 On no ion by Pattinson, second Kelly, Council adopted , as amended , )tesolution No. 53 -C, by the following roll call vote: AYES: attinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic NOES: F nley, Bailey ABSENT: Th as PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE 83-9 - APPROVED - ORD NO 2653 INTRODUCTION APPROVED - ND 83 8 - APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour s for a public hearing to consider Zone Case 8 -9 and Negative Declaration 83 8, a request to permit an expansion of the perms ted uses on property zoned Q) C4 (Highway Commercial District combined with qualified classificatio to include a "Fisherman's Supply Center." The su `eet property is locat d on the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and "A" Str t and is currently estricted to "Office Professional" uses only. 7021 and 17011 " Street). At the September 7, 1983 Planning Commission mee 'ng , the Planni ng Commissi on approved Zone Case 83-91 as requested by the app 'cant, and so apprc.vPd a maximum. building size of 3,000 square feet for the su ject pro rty. The Mayor stated that Negative Declaration No. 83-28 would also be con idered. in conjunction with said Zone Case. The City Clerk announced that all 1 al requirements for notification, publication and posting had been t, and that she had received no comunicaions or written protests o th matter. The Mayor declared the hearin open. There being no one present o speak on the tter and there being no protests filed, either oral or writ en, the hearing wa closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presente Ordinance No. 2653 for Council consideratrion - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDI THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY DING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE WITHI AN EXISTING QUALIFIED C-4 DIST CT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON BEACH B LEVARD SOUTH OF WARNER (ZONE CAS 83-9)." A motion was ma by Pattinson, seconded by Bailey, Cou cil approved Negative Declaration 83 28, approved Zone Case 83-9, and after re ing by title, approved intr duction of Ordinance No. 2653, by the folio 'ng roll call vote: AYES: P ttinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mand NOES: one ABSENT: Thomas FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FY FOR 10/1/83 THROUGH 9/30/84 PUB HEARING - HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - STAFF AUTHORIZED TO SUB T HAP TO Housing & Urban Devlopment on or about October 31, 1983. This annual HAP i The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public he ing to consider the proposed Housing Assistance Plan (HAP which identifies the ity goals for federal assistance and is to be submitted to the U.S. Departmen of Page 10 - Council Minutes - 10/10/83 fo he period of October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1984. The Mayor state hat copies if the Housing Assistance Plan are available for r iew in the City erk's Office. The City Clerk nounced that all legal requirements for ication and posting had been m , and that she had received no no iications or written protests to the matte The Mayor declared the hear' open. There being no one present to spe o he matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the ring was, closed by the Mayor. Following discussion, a mote n was made by attinson, seconded by Bailey, to approve and authorize s f to submit the Hou 'ng Assistance Plan for the Federal Government F' cal Year October- 1, 1983 t ough September 30, 1984 by the following ro call vote: AYES: P tinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, M dic NOES None ABS Thomas PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED OPEN TO 11/21/83 - CUP 83-18 /TPM 83 -563/CE 83-26 /ND 83-21 - APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILWOMAN BAILEY - APPEAL FILED BY INEZ NEUENFELDT & K DEAN ZITKO - HEIL /GOTHARD The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 83-18, Tentative Parcel Map 83-563, Conditional Exception 83-26 and Negative Declaration 83-21. The basis for Councilwoman Bailey's appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage prtjlem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. The basis for Inez Neuenfeldt and K. D. Zitko's appeal is that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from theresidential neighborhood to the west, building height restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. CUP 83-18 is a request to permit a,mixed use industrial development of 201,110 sq. ft. of commercial and office uses with future build-to-suit areas located on the NW corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street. The subject property is approximately 16.9 acres in size and is zoned Ml (Light Industrial District). TPM 83-563 is a request to Create an eleven lot industrial subdivision on the same site. CE 83-26 is a request to allow parking space. for compact cars in place of standard size parking spaces in the proposed industrial development. The Mayor stated that the adoption of ND 83-21 would be a determination that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. ow. QQ&d W )nr 13070 OLD BOLSA CHICA ROAD WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92683 714.894.3896 September 6, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. Dear Sir: We believe there have been six main issues identified in the appeals of the project. Those issues are: 1. Proposed project's drainage impact on potential flooding in Magellan Lane. 2. Impact of proposed project's drainage on the adjacent flood control channel. 3. Building setback from project's west property line. 4. Landscape buffer. 5. Building height restrictions. 6. Traffic access to Heil. The purpose of this letter is to answer these identified concerns as best we can. First it should be understood that the proposed project is consistant with the longtime standing General Plan and zoning of the area. It is being processed in the same manner as the recent and simular projects south of Heil. They were also mixed use developments. The proposed project requires no zoning ordinance condition exceptions or variances. The present project proposes buildings with more attractive and more expensive elevations than the nearby industrial projects. We believe it is the type of project the city wants for the area. (1) The proposed project's drainage has not and will not go into Magellan Ln. and therefore has no direct impact on potential flooding in Magellan Ln, The city staff has concurred on this fact and has made recommendations to improve the perforrnanc' of the storm drain pump station which serves Magellan Ln. Please refer to a letter from Paul Cook dated September 16, 1983 and another letter from Les Evans dated August 31, 1983. This issue was fully discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Both the Commissioners and staff tried to explain the drainage separation of the proposed project and the residential tract to the surrounding residents. (2) The current drainage. runoff of the subject property is 7.2 CFS. The additional peak runoff due to development of the ultimate project will be 12.1 CFS. The ultimate project's increase flow over existing flow would be less than 1 inch depth in the channel. The city staff has reviewed these calculations and stated their concurrance. The ultimate project is planned to be completed in approximately two to three years, Therefore the 12.1 CFS level will be reached gradually over a few years. We believe it will take 1'Z years before an additional 6 CFS will be generated by the project. In both staff letters refered to above, the March 1983 storm was declaired to be a 100 yr. storm event. The flood control channel adjacent to the project is required by code to hold the smaller 25 yr. storm event. Even though the calculated capacity of the channel is less than a 25 yr, event it has held a 100 yr. storm. It was stated in the Sept. 16th letter that, "The storm channel to the rear of the homes on Heil was also operating near capacity during the March 1, 1983 storm, but did not overto into -2- the residential nei hborhood." We agree that increasing channel capacity would add flood prevention security to the area, $188 ,000 could accomplish a great amount of channel improvement and these funds are available in the drainage area for design & construction. The proposed project has not made the current potential flood channel capacity problem and should, not be made to suffer the entire burden . In fact the land for the current channel was taken from the project property some years ago. The channel capacity problem may not be as great as calculated because the channel has actually demonstrated its practical ability to hold a 100 yr, storm in March of this year , The proposed project's drainage would be less than one inch depth in the channel and represents less than 1.8° of the total channel flow . The ro osed ro'ect's draina e fees could in fact be used to benefit the surroundin residential ro erties throu h channel im rovements. The ro'ect, as ro osed , can be a net benefit to the surroundin residents . It should not be considered a floodin threat. (3) The residents have requested a 45 foot building setback from the project's west property line even though the Planning Commission explained that the project abuts industrial zoned property and no building setback is required by the zoning ordinance . The Planning Commission did require a 6 ft. setback and limited landscape buffer as a compromise position in an effort to satisfy the residents . We did not complain about this burden even though it was not required by the zoning ordinance. We hoped the setback controversy would end at the rlanning Commission . We are trying to be reasonable but a 45 foot setback is not reasonable when no setback is required by code and we are prevented from using the area for parking and driveways. The Planning Commission explained the esthetic benefits of zero setback to the residents. One problem with industrial developments is activity behind buildings. Setting buildings back on the lots prevents trash accumulation ,, derelic vehicle parking , and noise generation near to residential properties. We do not believe adding to the current 6 ft. setback is fair to this project or reasonable . The 6 ft. setback has already removed $77,000 worth of property from industrial utilization in addition to the construction costs and ongoing landscape maintenance. A somewhat related issue to building setback is the existance of an Edison electrical power transmission line along the west side of the property . We don't see this as a problem . It is not uncommon to relocate such power lines when a property is developed . A more logical and more easily maintained location for the power lines would be the major driveway going through the proposed project. This approach has an esthetic advantage to the residents . They will not have to look at unsightly power poles and . wires, (4) The 6 ft. landscaping was required by the Planning Commission to do just what the residents have requested in their appeal item number 2 Within the land- scape setback condition for this project there are restrictions specifically designed to mitigate noise . The limitations on location of truck doors and windows are effective measures to limit noise. Condition number 13 coupled with these restriction seems to be a little overkill . We don't see that condition 13 is really necessary when there are already design criteria for noise mitigation specified in condition 5. The 6 ft. tree landscaping area is designed to enhance the appearance of the buildings. We don 't believe the new development is really the esthetic problem. The 30 ft. Flood control channel is a much more difficult esthetics problem which the residents have lived with for a number of years, apparently with little complaint. We believe the appeal over the issue of lanscape buffer is inappropriate because an adequate condition already exists to overcome the stated concerns . We again have tried to be reasonable and have not complained about the 6 ft. of landscaping even though no such landscaping was required of the recent industrial projects south of Neil and adjacent to the channel and residential properties. -3- (5) The residents appeal states, "The building heights both north of the proposed development and south-of Heil that border the east side of the residential tract are restricted to 17'-0"." That statement is simply in error. The city planning staff can find no such height limitation conditions on those projects. If the Council adopts the policy of simular treatment between the recently developed projects in the area and this project, no height limitation should be imposed other than that which is already in the zoning ordinance. On this issue the Planning Commission required a height limitation as a compromise. Condition 14 imposes a 29 ft. height limit within 50 ft. of the westerly property line. This condition is in excess of that required of the other simular projects recently developed in the area. Since the flood control channel separates the proposed project from the residential property lines by 30 ft. there is not a limitation of light and air problem under law. The residential buildings would be about 45 ft. from the nearest industrial building. We have not complained about condition 14 and are trying to be reasonably responsive to the city's needs but do not find a 17 ft. height limitation to be reasonable. Further, we believe it would be an unfair burden on this project and inconsistant with conditions imposed on simular projects. (6) The project just south of Heil adjacent to the proposed project was granted access to Heil. This project is not proposing something extraordinary or contrary to accepted traffic engineering design standards. No appreciable increase in traffic will occur because of the proposed Heil driveway. Most traffic is going to go toward Gothard and the freeway . If you have any questions, desire additional information, or want to discuss the project, please call me at 855-9399. We look forward to the October 10th meeting. Sincerely, William Lee Miller li TO, Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: City Clerk RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No, 83-18/Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563/Condition Exception No. 83-26/Negative Declaration No, 83-21 September 19, 1983 We wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 7, 1983 meeting regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18/Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563/Conditional Exception No. 83-26/Negative Declaration No. 83-21. We do not feel there was enough information and consideration given by the Planning Commission on the following items: 1. Building set back on west side of development that abuts the residential area known as Prestige Tract #6181. The ordinance Article #953 - Subparagraph 9534.8 says "Rear Yard Set Back There shall be no minimum rear yard set back requirement ex- cept where an M-1 lot or parcel abuts property which is resi- dential in the general plan and zoned residential in which case the minimum rear yard set back shall be forty-five (45) feet." We assume this means a set back from the east property line of the flood control channel, to coincide with the development on the south side of Heil (SE corner Gothard and Heil). A legal opinion should be obtained to clarify this from the City Attorney. 2. Landscaped Buffer Zone - made a part of the 45'0" set back to ob- scure the buildings and normal things that are placed around buildings in performing routine daily business in M-1 zoning. The landscaped buffer will also provide some soundproofing for the residents. 3. Building Height Restrictions - The building heights both north of the proposed development and south of Heil that border the east side of the residential tract are restricted to 17'0'". We believe we should get the same treatment. 4. Heavy Traffic Control on Heil- We have an elementary school crossing on Heil Avenue within 600' of the p•oposed development and there are three other schools that use Heil crosswalks within 1i miles, We believe all heavy traffic should be eliminated from using Heil Avenue and restricted to Gothard Street only. The residents of Prestige Tract #6181 are not against Mr, Miller's developing the 17 acre field behind our tract, however, since anything that he or any other developers build there will affect the "quiet enjoyment of our homes, we want to be sure that our rights are considered and protected, We make this appeal because there was so much confusion the night of the Plan - ning Commission that it was difficult to determine who and what was voted on. The ty pewritten minutes of the meeting will be very helpful to you in under- standing our appeal. Your help will be appreciated. Resi dents of the Prestige Tract #6181 J.C'rz = Z 'i'p Owe Inez Neuenfe dt K, Dean Zitko 7221 Heil Avenue 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 714/848-4619 714/848-9512 Attachments: Petition of 357 signatures from residents of Prestige Tract #6181 Check for $165.00 CC: All Planning Commissioners AM,.IV T We theundorsigne. dents of Prostige Tract #61`.',ose the proposed development at Gathard and Heil - Tentative Parcel Map #83-563 or APM #142-122-06, as is presently being considered for approval by the city of Huntington Beach, until the conditions and restrictions listed below are met to the satisfaction of the taxpaying homeowners or their representatives. 1. FLOOD CONTROL - Sufficient pump cap. to handle runoff generated by new development. 2. POLLUTION - Restrict businesses that deal in chemicals and odorus materials. 3. HEAVY TRAFFIC - No right of way for delivery or garbage vehicles nor pick up stations on west side of development. 4. NOISE CONTROL - No exterior noise except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 5. FIRE & EXPLOSIVES- No businesses permitted that use combustible materials. CON CL 6. REDG. DESIGN- Not to detract visually from the homeowners quiet enjoyment of their property. 7. LANDSCAPE - Attractive buffer zone (building set back) of at least h5 feet from east side of flood control chanel to be planted with mat- ure evergreens and flowering ground cover (Lantana) with a sprinkler system. ; SECURITY - Install barbed wire on top of existing fence east side of chanel. NAME PRINTED ADDRESS CITY & PHONE #SIGNATURE 40 L 6 'G'e'l.. /(..t. f,.?J'.r• J._. 's .L•-4 i{ ,/C/ /"` - e / -Cfl/ 3 yeV )e- 7 lu t5h , U1)/ r t -7«±F/:` / / ll , /i: •t . -' i - . ) 5 A ) 2.2 [_'15I1NGZv L j J B 4d rG.K. irKc l J 3J 1 r4 ti 1 l•.c. .,d'. s4 - pv CITY HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON BEACH TO CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICA T ION• . • on: Meor and City Council ATTf+T: CITY CLERK SUBJ GAT APPEAL' {O ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO,. €9U-,:8/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 83-5i3/CONDITION EXCEPTION NO. + #"-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO : '8 3 -.21 ., Esc I wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 7, 1583 meeting regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18./Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563/Conditional Exception No. 83-26/Negative Declaration No. 83-21. I do not feel there was enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem, and. the approval of this development 'as recom- mended would appear to add to the existing drainage problem within the 'surrounding neighborhood. it has come to my attention that Staff is preparing a report on the existing drainageoblem which was nbt,available at the time of the Planning Commission's decision. FROM Cauhbilwoman Ruth Baile DATE 5eptemb 11 1983 NOTICE OF APEZAL TO% Piled by: REGARDING /0 S-/z --g,3 Set for Public Hearing Copy of letter of appeal attached. Please tranetsit: HUNTINGTON BEACH ,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEP 1933 P.O. pox 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Legal notice and mailing list to Clerk for legal notice; Letter of explanation for City Council public hearing for meeting listed a bove by Alicia K. Wentwo rth CITY C LERK NOTICE OF AFWAL TO:DATE: / 2,- Filed by: PG Cop- dV i Set for Public Hearing /0-.?_ Copy of letter of appeal attached. Please transmit:1) HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2) /C/o d-3-L.C Legal notice and mailing list to Clerk for legal notice; Letter Of explanation for City Council public SEP 12 W3 hearing for meeting listed above by P.O. Box 190 . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY CL M Alicia M. Went- worth NOTICE OF APIMAL TO: Filed by: _' 2 2A, Copy of letter of appeal attached. Please transmit: 1) Legal notice and mailing list to Clerk for get for Public Hearing /D-/o- DA CE: - b'3 GAMING 7b G' urt l u 3 <'i j-JgJ CSej -4,e HUNTINGTON%EACH DEVELOPMENTSERVICES SEP2 2 P 0, Box 190 HuntingtonBeach,CA 92648 legal notice; Letter of explanation , for City Council public hearing, fox meeting listed above by Alicia X. Wentworth CITY CL To Les Evans Public Works 3ames W. Palin Development Services Subject Drainage Impacts of v Date August 23, 1983 Mixed-Use Industrial Project At Gothard and Heil At their August 16, 1983 meeting the Planning Commission considered Conditional use Permit No. 83-18 to allow a mixed-use industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. Many residents from the single family neighborhood immediately to the west of the site testified that their neighborhood had a drainage problem and that runoff from the proposed project would intensify this problem. The Planning commission continued their consideration of the proposed project in order to further assess the drainage issue. We would appreciate input from your departmenh on the following questions by August 29th or sooner so that we can transmit a recommendation to the Planning Commission fox their September 7, 1983 meeting: 1, Has the City documented a potential drainage problem on Magellan Lane and/or in the neighborhood west of the proposed project site? 2. What is the design capacity of the City's storm drain channel adjacent to the project site and would runoff from the project potentially exceed this capacity? 3. 'what is thedesign capacity of the storm drain pump station that pumps into the channel, and what areas does it serve? Could runoff from the porposed project overload this pump station? Our department previously transmitted site plans of the proposed mixed-use industrial project to your department for review. If you need any additional information please contact Carol Inge of my staff. JWP:ci CITY OF HU TI GTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 11 ayw 1,fVillr Yh,l S:hf f4 41'.1 kip`.: Ear + 'A'1 .,+rx 1.4k CW.L fix S27i.yt L , I k :f rl)w CO I a U ' 4 1 T10 EI.b a 0 CZIOP.7Ccuiioil,v; .ma Ruth «:a ,1c Y1 5 ' 'tW v, °.S ; 1°,.,,,X'I 4I`T' 11AP-mL Loa? 4+5*"r`S 3sco ....'x,314 !aXC.r,'XON f3 J°' C7 yf 1W+rE:.i .. " :w iJ2CLl :lluwlO vn g 1 !1 11ro '*3 4y w-y+++4 [.E wl. lAc:. 8,}x.*.M Jew .V a y1 a+Y crni n r 7,1983 iner:1 ,tn;j rGgar a i..;j conditional use permit 3 - ='ontativc, Pz:ca Map . » $3-5&-3,/COnaiWiana1 Ex=cption 25, , : at v €E c: t tin r"). 83-21. l o not fa. al ther n oG»a aCf.°D'1+aiG'L's,LS...t'.+.c:a I.-v an the ., af. pprc-w al of 14i1.l. fdG' * a Ok ,^.iv UL-.. r+ : 'C:8",,„ u 13 ..L^ w , (:il tQ "1 tv" C+r r.ie jc }7rc3b 1 m ,+' thi .... t1 bane Gµ ta,i Pl :I'lnif r : kt 1 ':? Y t c'C:iSXCra°.« t t r "1« t`1 i1 Iac:i n'L ~K c a A hatir =n;:: to 1 y as ` ;t"1`r iOi 'a that :,.,. w » « p i nt a aTr`c' t on .,_ e:,x Ica n3 dr ;ina , s2 p oblekr. :-hicli CITY OF HUN T I G T ON MACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Les Evans City Engineer Subject Drainage Impacts of N/W Corner Gothard/Heil From Date Carol Inge Development Services August 30, 19R Attached is a copy of drainage calculations submitted by the applicant of the proposed mixed-use industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. Does Public Works concur with the applicant's conclusion that the proposed project will have no adverse effects on drainage flow in the channel adjacent to the project? Also, is there an explanation of why the residents of Magellan Lane complained to the Planning Commission of a flooding problem on their Street? jh;CI CITY OF HUNTINGTONI BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Les Evans City Engineer Subject Drainage Impacts of Proposed Development at N/W corner of Gothard/Neil From Date Carol Inge 0 Development Services August 30, 1983 evP -3 - After reviewing the drainage calculations submitted by Lee Miller for the proposed industrial development on the north- west corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue, do you feel that development of the project will increase the risk of flooding to the residents in the neighborhood to the west of the project? If so, would this increased flood risk be due to the channel exceeding its capacity, to the pump station exceeding its capacity, or both? Are there any mitigation measures that can be incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potential flooding? Do we have any documantation of a flooding problem on Magellan Lane or nearby streets? If not, is there any explanation of why the residents on this street perceived a problem and com- plained about it to the Planning Commission at the August 16, 1983 meeting? Did I ask enough questions? CI:jh CITY OF Humi9 'amGTOm REACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Charles W. Thompson City Administrator Subject Neighborhood Flooding North of Heil and West of Gothard From Date HUNTINGTONBEACHDEVELOPMENT SERVICES Paul F. Cook SEP 2 0 14u3 , P.O. Box i 90 ton Beach, CA 92648 Director of Public Works September 16, 1983 During the recent Planning Commission consideration of a proposed industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue, a large group of citizens appeared to express their concerns about the drainage impacts of the project. The Public Works Department reported to the Planning Counission that the storm drain capacity serving the proposed industrial site was adequate and would not create a flooding hazard. Residents of the adjacent subdivision were not convinced, however, and presented lengthy and emotional testimony on a May, 1975 flood, an October, 1982 flood and the March 1, 1983 flood. The City does not maintain records of emergency call-outs for flooding problems prior to 1980 so the 1975 occurrence could not be investigated. The City rain- fall record recorded no measurable rain in October, 1982. We are sure, however, what happened during the March 1, 1983 storm. According to accounts from residents, the Heil Avenue pump station could not keep up with the flows during the March 1, 3.983 storm and several homes rear the inlet structures were evacuated. Fortunately, the flood water never actually reached the homes or garages and did not cause significant damage. According to the City's pump station maintenance personnel, the Heil Avenue pump sta,_ion was working properly but simply fell behind during the March 1, 1983 100-year storm event. The Heil neighborhood can expect similar flooding to occur during future storms of equal or greater magnitude since the storm drain system will be operating at capacity. The storm channel to the rear of the homes on Heil was also operating near capacity during the March 1, 1983 storm, but did not overtop into the residential neighborhood. The City's storm drain facilities are designed to handle a 25-year storm. When storm events exceed the 25-year storm, pumps will begin to fall behind, storm drains will back up and streets will begin to flood. As the storm event approaches the 100-year storm, channels may overtop their banks, flooding of low lying areas will occur and property damage may result. On March 1, 1983, for the first time in recorded history (and most of our lifetimes) Huntington Beach actually ex - perienced rainfall intensity that equalled or exceeded accepted design standards. Statistically, it won't happen again for 100 years. Although the pup station maintenance personnel reported no problems with the Heil Pup Station in recent years, street maintenance personnel do have a record of responding to a. call-out on October 1, 1981 in response to a flooding problum. Rainfall records show about an inch of rain on that day and it may be that the October, 1982 flooding that the Magellen/Sunlight residents mentioned was actually the October, 1981 storm. Apparently, at that time the sump pump was not operat - ing and the pump station water storage area and street drain may have been full before the main pumps started. If this in fact was the case, street flooding Memo to Charles W 'iompson Neighborhood Flocuurg N,/o Heil & W/o Gothard September 16, 1983 0 Page 2 could have occurred during an intensive rainfall before the pumps caught up. A recurring problem which all our storm drain pump stations have been subject to is the lack of automatic controls to regulate the number of units pumping and pump speed to adjust to an intense rainfall. Most of our pump stations are designed to have pumps come on as water levels in the storage area (forebay) reach certain levels and speed up as the water reaches even higher levels. We are presently replacing the water level controls with automatic control systems which will sense the speed at which water is entering the pump station and adjust pump speed accordingly. In this way the pumps should not fall behind in a storm of less than the design intensity (about every 25 years). The automatic control system is being installed in the Heil Avenue Pump Station right now. The sump pump in the Heil Station is also being replaced due to complaints that it was too noisy. It would probably be to the City's advantage to install recording charts in all the storm drain pimp stations which would record when pumps come on and turn off, how high forebay water levels rise before the pumps come on, whether or not the pumps actually started, and how long they pump to get ahead of the incoming flows. We could add these charts to all our pump stations for about $23,000.00. In an August 31, 1983 memorandum prepared for the Planning Commission, the City Engineer stated that the storm channel separating the residential property and the industrial property was designed to accommodate the development of the project area. His statement was based on the conclusions expressed in the 1979 Master Plan of Drainage prepared fcr the City by L.D. King Engineering. Because of the considerable testimony from citizens that from their observation the channel was undersized, the L. D. King report was reviewed for accuracy. The Engineering Division staff found that L. D. King had used an incorrect slope for the channel analysis which makes a significant difference in the channel capacity. Using the correct slope leads to a full depth condition in the channel of 7.83' which is nearly 10" higher than the top of the existing channel. In addition, the 6' x 10' box culvert under Heil Avenue also appears to be underdesigned based on staff's calculations. I suggest we bring in a consultant who specializes in channel design and review, the storm channel and box culvert in question. I expect that the consultant will recommend raising the channel walls and enlarging the box culvert. There appear to be about $150,000 in drainage area funds available to make irrprove- ments in this District plus an estimated $38,000 payable by the developer of the industrial property. r TO: Honorable Mayor and City rnuncil ATTN: City Clerk RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18/Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563/Condition Exception No. 83-26/Negative Declaration No. 83-21 September 19, 1983 We wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 7, 1983 meeting regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18/Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563/Conditional Exception No. 83-26/Negative Declaration No. 83-21. We do not feel there was enough information and consideration given by the Planning Commission on the following items: 1. Building set back on west side of development that abuts the residential area known as Prestige Tract #6181. The ordinance Article #953 - Subparagraph 9534.8 says "Rear Yard Set Back There shall be no minimum rear yard set back requirement ex- cept where an M-1 lot or parcel abuts property which is resi- dential in the general plan and zoned residential in which case the minimum rear yard set back shall be forty-five (45) feet." We assume this means a set back from the east property line of the flood control channel, to coincide with the development on the south side of Heil (SE corner Gothard and Heil). A legal opinion should be obtained to clarify this from the City Attorney. 2. Landscaped Buffer Zone - made a part of the 45'0" set back to ob- scure th- buildings and normal things that are placed around buildings in performing routine daily business in M-1 zoning. The landscaped buffer will also provide some soundproofing for the residents. 3. Building Height Restrictions The building heights both north of the proposed development and south, of Heil that border the east side of the residential tract are restricted to 17'0 We believe we should get the same treatment. 4. Heavy Traffic Control on Heil - We have an elementary school crossing on Heil Avenue within 600' of the p-oposed development land there are three other schools that use Heil crosswalks within 13;j miles. We believe all heavy traffic should be eliminated from using Heil Avenue and restricted to Gothard Street only. The residents of Prestige Tract #6181 are not against Mr. Miller's developing the 17 acre field behind our tract, however, since anything that he or any other developers build there will affect the "quiet enjoyment " of our hom€s, we want to be sure that our rights are considered and protected. We make this appeal because there was so much confusion the night of the Plan- ning Commission that it was difficult to determine who and what was voted on. The typewritten minutes of the meeting will be very helpful to you in under- standing our appeal. Your help will be appreciated. Residents of the Prestige Tract #6181 *V(e'l ,' 4 v Inez Neuenfel"dt K. Dean Zitko 7221 Heil Avenue 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 714/848-4619 714/848-9512 Attachments: Petition of 357 signatures from residents of Prestige Tract #6181 Check for $165.00 CC: All Planning Commissioners W Planning Commission meeting date: Application accepted on:_-/7-g_ Planner in charge: c • 2 . Has filing status been sent to applicant? e Staff report due .date: Review file; are plans complete? Has letter of authorization been verified? Has request for Ordinance been sent to Attorney? / A Has legal description been prepared? Legal notice publishing date: .Have A.P.'s been completed? Has area map been completed? Are photographs required? Has plan check been completed? Inter-department review form sent on? Negative Declaration assigned to: Negative Declaration number: Legal i,tlce publishing date: M 2'vpg3-1??L vCN-6rci ) a r4 561m t prowx c . 54 /-r' l -7 R cn! 9W 13070 OLD 8OLSA CHICA ROAD WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92683 714-894-3896 August 25, 1983 Carol Inge, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I-IUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUS ? ci P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: August 18, 1983 Carol Inge letter regarding storm runoff water, other issues identified at August 16th Planning Commission meeting, plus solutions to issues employed at existing adjacent industrial/mixed use properties. Dear Carol, There were five main issues identified at the Planning Commission meeting. Those issues were : 1. Proposed project's drainage runoff and impact of that runoff on existing adjacent flood control channel; 2. Proposed project's drainage impact on potential flooding in Magellan Lane and storm drain pump station pumping from Magellan In. into adjacent flood control channel; 3. Measurement of 45 foot set back from residential property as generally described in section S.9534.8 of the city's zoning ordinance; 4. Potential inclusion of backyard landscaping buffer; 5. Study and mitigation of potential noise eminating from proposed future build-to-suit portion of the project which would impact existing residential property. The purpose of this letter is to answer these identified concerns as best we can. (1) 25 year storm is required for channel sizing, but by code 10 year storm is sufficient for street drainage design. The following is a calculation of a 25 year storm. Q = CIA Q = acre inches/ hour 1.008 Q = CFS Total area of ultimate project = 16.928 acres Area of roofs, asphalt and concrete = 15.574 acres Area of landscaping 1.354 acres Average C = 15.574(.85) + 1'.35A(.30) / 16.928 = 0.806 I for a 25 yr. storm has a time of concentration of 35 minutes as per the city's master plan of drainage and I equals 1.4 in./hr at peak flow. Current runoff of undeveloped property -2- Ultimate project runoff at development Q ultimate = .896(1.4)16.928(1.008) = 19.25 CFS Total increase in runoff from ultimate project Q increase = 12.08 CFS The master plan of drainage, which found the channel adjacent to the property to be adequate to design standards, anticipates 24 CFS to be coming from the project just before the Heil Ave. bridge. A copy of a map from the city's master plan of drainage is attached as 411. A map showing directions of street drainage is attached as #2. The L9.25 CFS is less than that anticipated in the master plan. Further, the master plan of drainage shows 1078 CFS in the channel on the west side of the property. 19.25 CFS is less than 1.8% of that 1078 CFS flow. This project's total flow would represent less than 1' inch depth in the channel. The ultimate project's increase flow over existing flow would be less than l inch depth in the channel. Since the project generates less runoff than that anticipated in the master plan, total flow would be less than 13inches in the channel, and said plan found the channel to be adequate, we conclude that the project will not adversely effect drainage flow in the channel adjacent to the project. An additional fact might be worthy of consideration. Our family has owned the subject property at Heil and Gothard for over 25 years. The property was 20 acres before the city took the approximately 30 foot wide strip for the channel known as SC2. It is obvious that this channel benefits properties in addition to our property. Since we suffered the severance of the channel from our property it only seems fair that the proposed project be allowed access to the channel without the requirement that it be rebuilt. (2) The porposed project's drainage has not and will not go into Magellan Ln. at all and therefore has no direct impact on potential flooding in Magellan Ln. In checking the master plan of drainage, it was found that the two pumps at the storm drain pump station are sized and installed according to the master plan. They are sized to handle the peak flow with the back head pressure of the channel flowing full. Since the proposed project's flow is less than 1/ inches deep, it will not noticeably effect the performance of the pumps. If the problem of which local residents complain is due. to delay in starting of a pump, Huntington Beach maintenance personnel should be contacted. (3) Section 9534.8 of the city's zoning ordinance reads," REAR YARD SETBACK. There shall be no minimum rear yard seback requirement except where an. Ml lot or parcel abuts property which is residential in the general plan and zoned residential, in which case the minimum rear yard setback shall be forty-five (45) feet." The city's general plan many years ago designated the, entire 20 acres as industrial. That industrial designation goes upto the property lines of the residential tract no. 6181. Therefore, the approximately 30 foot strip of the drainage channel adjacent to tract no. 6181 is general planned industrial. We believe this position is in conformance with both general plan and zoning maps of the area. It would seem appropriate that the beginning point to measure the 45 foot tear yard setback is the east boundary line of tract no. 6181. It would seem very unfair to not allow the inclusion of the 30 ft. channel within the 45 ft. setback since it was once part of the proposed property. In addition, the primary purpose as generally described in the ordinance is to provide a physical separation from the residential property, not separation from a flood control channel. -3- (4) Considerations identified for the potential inclusion of a backyard land - scaping buffer seem to be noise mitigation and enhancement of residential property owner 's view of the project. In talking with acoustical engineers, we found that landscaping is a very ineffective noise mitigating naterial for the situation we have in the proposed project. There is so much noise leakage around and through trees that they do very little to impede or reflect noise. The acoustical engineers say it is generally much more effective to place truck doors perpendicular to residential property. It is also very effective to require building users who generate noise in excess of that allowed to comply with special operating procedures and install special noise reducing equipment around . doors at the time they take out a business license or when they occupy the building. We conclude that landscaping would not reduce potential future noise of which the residents fear. Other measures are much more effective and may be appropriately required at building plan approval and/or building user occupancy. In considering landscaping as a method to improve the residential property owners' view of the property, the existence of the flood control channel and the nature of industrial projects should be reviewed. The flood control channel is a concrete lined and trapizoidal with a chain link fence at the edge. The city's public works section has expressed one concern regarding the future operation and maintenance of the channel. They do not want tree roots to lift wall sections or protrude through concrete joints . Tree roots could have a very deleterious effect on the channel . This potential problem rules out planting along the edge of the channel all the tree varieties we know and have successfully grown in the area. Although trees spreading roots are a problem, ground cover could be planted along the flood channel. The problem with ground cover is that it could barely be seen from across the channel and through the existing chain link fence. An alternate. approach to the problem was approved on the industrial/mixed use project directly across Heil Avenue from the subject property . In that project, wooden slats were installed in the chain link fence to block or screen the view of parked cars, large trucks, and trash dumpsters . The wooden slats also served a nother purpose . The chain link with wooden slats provides somewhat greater noise reduction than would trees . Because landscaping cannot be planted near to the residential property owners ' block walls, the poor esthetics of the flood control channel are very difficult to mitigate. We conclude that a more effective solution, previously utilized on a recently constructed similar project , would be a wood and chain link screen in lieu of backyard landscaping. (5) Noise generated from the currently proposed light industrial buildings, which are over 250 feet from the residential properties, does not have the potential of being in excess of allowable levels. The future build-to-suit area of the project might include a condition for an acoustical engineer's report and recommendation as to truck door locations, special operating procedures and special sound attenuating equipment so that acceptable noise levels are not exceeded. We conclude that extraordinary noise mitigation measures are not required of the currently proposed building. Acoustical engineer studies and potentially required noise mitigations should be deferred until structures are proposed within the future build-to-suit area of the project. If you have any questions, desire additional information, or want to discuss the project, please call me at 855-9399. We look forward to the September , 7th Planning Commission meeting. HUNTINGTOl'i MACH Subject CITY OF HU TI GT O BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Carol Inge Assistant Planner Drainage Impacts of Gothard/Heil Project From Date Les Evans City Engineer HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES rJL Li I.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648. August 31, 1983 In response to your persistent and pointed memorandums , we have reviewed the operation of the drainage system serving the area at the 1W corner of Gothard and Heil. Both the proposed industrial development and the subdivision to the west of the project,drain to the City flood control channel which separates the two areas. The residential area flows to a drainage inlet at the intersection of Sunlight and Magellen and then through an easement to the Heil pump station which pumps the storm water into the City flood control channel. According to accounts from residents on Magellen, the pump station could not keep up with the flows during the March 1, 1983 storm and several homes near the inlet structures were evacuated. Fortunately, the flood water never actually reached the homes or garages and did not cause significant damage. According to the City's pump station maintenance personnel, the Heil Avenue pump station was working properly, but simply fell behind during the March 1, 1983 100-year storm event. The Magellen neighborhood can expect similar flooding to occur during future storms of equal or greater magnitude since the storm drain system will be operating at capacity. The storm channel to the rear of the homes on Magellen was also operating near capacity during the March 1, 1983 storm, but did not overtop. The proposed industrial development will gravity flow into the adjacent City flood control channel., The channel was designed to accommodate the development of the project area and will not be adversely impacted as long as future storms do not exceed the City's storm drain design standards. The City's storm drain facilities are designed to handle a 25-year storm. When storm events exceed the 25 yea storm pumps will begin to fall behind, storm drains will back up and streets will begin to flood. As the storm event approaches the 100-year stormy channels may overtop their banks, flooding of low lying areas will occur and property damage may result., On March 1, 1983,.. for the first time in recorded history (and most of our lifetimes) Huntington Beach actually experienced rainfall intensity that equalled or exceeded accepted design standards. Statistically it won't happen again for 100 years. Based on accepted design practice, the proposed industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard and Heil should not be denied for inadequate storm drain capacity. LE:jy Subject: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Date : August 4, 1983 Assistant Planner Civil Engineer Associate Street, S/o Main Street. 2. 30' radius type driveway required on Florida Street. 3. Improvements within public right-of-way shall be in accordance with Public Works Dcparbnent Standards and requirements. 1. No parking will be allowed on: 1. Main Street; 2. the first 275' of Florida CITY OF HUN T ING T ON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Carol Inge From : Bill Patapoff S/W ODRNE$ MAIN AND FLORIDA; FIND N/W CORNER C'OTHARD AND HEIL Main and Florida Project 2. Qamereial Industrial type radius driveways shall be constructed. 3. interior commercial access ways shall be 27' wide per code. 4. Abandon all existing wells per City Standards. 5. A separate on-site utility plan shall be submitted on 24" x 36" City linen. 6. Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer, and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development. 7. Show where entire site is draining on tentative Parcel Map. 8. Erosion control plan shall be sut u.tted for proposed and future develo rent. 9. Show street sections on tentative Parcel Map. 10. Is this an 11 parcel tentative Parcel Map? If so, parcel lines should be solid. 11. How many acres in parcel? Gothard and Heil Project 1. Pavement evaluation of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue shall be conducted to de- termine if reconstruction or capping of existing streets are necessary. Les Evars' Ed Elevtorski Bruce Gilmer Jack Miller Daryl Smith ,3px /9S t •I Y,. s I (.11,,FA ON .! -: a l i. 11 Loc L t72A1tA6E PFtTTE2NS It C-XIST, 24)w, Ia2oP INLST it I I rW 6'r.t I- N o rtoP ILL. r HEIL WS WLM a-a '}+'n. SiF. +TCrs nisi r; ^rt:i.w.n"-'. tfi ._- DE ELOP ENT E EW RL _ ST LOCATION: REVIEW AREAS Emphasize Standard Analysis Review PUBLIC WORKS Administration/ Policy Develognent Sewer Water Traffic Design Tree and Landscape Other FIRE BUILDING PARKS AND REC. OTHER: Please submit your concerns and recommended sol:utio s in writing on or before_7i Interdepartmental Review: Final Planning Review: BZA: Subdivision Ccnudttee: Planning Commission: Response submitted by: Date: Attachments: 0 N TO: Y, I FROM: SUBJECT: COMMENTS: a C REQUEST PRIORITIES: ACTION NEEDED: DATE: ( huntington beach planning department Date 5tgnd 4S 465 SEND PARIS I AND 3, WITH CARBONS INTACT. Felt' Pn4 O WA) 40465 PART 3 WI{L BE RETURNED WIIN REPLY SAFECO PRELIMINARY REPORT HURT INGTQJV3Fikr;<,t SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 825 North Broadway REVELOPf Clv7S ttNi P. . Box Ana,2CA. 92702 JUN 1.71983 M. WESTLAND CGMPANY (714)547-7251 P.0• soxIgo 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Road Huntington E3mch,GA9264D Westminster, CA 92683 Attention: Lee Miller Dated as of May 5, 1983 at 7:30 a.m. Your No Our No: 523298-11 In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY hereby reports that it is prepared to issue , as of the date hereof, a California Land Title Association Standard Coverage Form Policy of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth in Schedule At insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception in Schedule B or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy form. This report (and any supplements or amendments thereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title i'nsurancre and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance , a Binder or Commitment should be requested. George H. Bull, TITLE OFFICER P-118 Order No. 523298 SCHEDULE A The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this schedule covered by this report is: A Fee Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in : M, WESTLAND COMPANY, a California general partnership The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of Cali- fornia, County of Orange, and is described as follows: Exhibit I attached hereto and made a part hereof. Order No. 523298 EXHIBIT I The West half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica, City of Huntinjton Beach, County of Orange, State of California, shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the interest, in that portion of said land, conveyed to the City of Huntington Beach by deed recorded April 3, 1963, in book 6493, page 894, Official Records. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof included within Tract No. 4064, as shown on a map recorded in book 142, pages 36 and 37 of Miscel- laneous Maps, records of said Orange County. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM 50% of a 100% of all minerals, gas, oil, petroleum, naphtha and other hydrocarbon substances in, under or that may be produced or recovered from that portion of said land below a depth of 500 feet from its surface, with and including in each exception and reservation for the benefit of those entitled thereto, the right at any and all times to enter upon and into any and all parts of the portion of said land below such depth of 500 feet from Its surface, for the purpose of exploring and drilling for, mining, developing, removing and extracting any and all such substances, by slant or directional drilling or other operations from other land, entering into and penetrating the land, the subject herein, only below such depth of 500 feet from its surface, but with (and there shall be) no right under such exception and reservation of entry upon or use of the surface or subsurface to a depth of 500 feet below the surface, as reserved by Dorothy Thayer Peck, Charles H. Thatcher and Title Insurance and Trust Company, a corporation, all as Trustee of the trust under written declaration thereof by Carrie A. Peck, dated December 18, 1936, as to an undivided 25% of said 100% interest and by Dorothy T. Peck, a widow, in her individual capacity, as to an undivided 25% of said 100% Interest. 0 SAFECO Order No. 523298 SCHEDULE B At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions contained in said policy form would be as follows: 1. Taxes for the fiscal year 1983-84, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. An easement for roads, railroads and ditches over the Southerly 15 feet of said land; also the use and control of cienegas and natural streams of water, if any, naturally upon, flowing across, into or by said tract, and the right of way for and to construct and irrigation or drainage ditches through said tract to irrigate or drain the adjacent land, as reserved in deeds of record. 3. An easement to accept the flow of flood waters over said land from adjacent lands as granted to Sydney Sher, et al, by deed recorded April 25, 1961, in book 5700, page 665, Official Records. 4. An easement for street and public utility purposes and rights incidental thereto as granted to the City of Huntington Beach by instrument recorded June 19, 1963 in book 6596, page 176, Official Records. Affects: The Easterly 40 feet of said land 5. An easement for poles, underground conduits and appurtenances thereto for the purpose of transmission of electrical energy for communi- cation purposes and rights incidental thereto as granted to General Telephone Company of ilifornia, a corporation, by instrument recorded March 4, 1965 in book 7433, page 972, Official Records. Affects: That portion of said land described as follows: A 10-foot strip of land, the East line of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of Lot 4 of said Tract No. 4064, distant North 89° 25' 20" East, 40 feet from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 4; thence South 00 44' 00" East, parallel with the Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 1320.52 feet. 0 Order No. 523298 SCHEDULE B, Page 2 6. An easement for poles, underground conduits and appurtenances thereto for the purpose of transmission of electrical energy and rights incidental thereto as granted to General Telephone Company of California, a corporation , by instrument recorded April 30, 1965 in book 7504, page 498, Official Records. Affects: The North 6 feet of the South 37 feet of said land 7. An easement for aerial and underground electric and communication line and incidental purposes and rights incidental thereto as granted to Southern California Edison Company, a corporation by instrument recorded August 9, 1965 in book 7623, page 927, Official Records. Affects: That portion of said land described as follows: A strip of land 10 feet in width, the Easterly line of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of Lot 4 in said Tract No. 4064, distant North 89° 25' 20" East, 40 feet, measured along said Southerly line of Lot 4, from the Southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence South 000 44' 00" East, 1320.52 feet to the centerline of said Heil Avenue. Excepting therefrom any portion of said strips, lying within said Neil Avenue, as now established. 8. An easement for public street and utility purposes and rights incidental thereto as granted to the City of Huntington Beach by instrument recorded January 3, 1968 in book 8482, page 727, Official Records. Affects: Those portions of said land described as follows: PARCEL 1: The South 40.00 feet of the West one-half of said Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 23, excepting therefrom the Easterly 40.00 feet and excepting therefrom the Westerly 40.00 feet. PARCEL 2: That portion of the West one-half of the Southeast one- quacter of the Northwest one-quarter of said Section 23, lying Southeasterly of a curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 32.00 feet, being tangent on the South to the North line of Parcel 1 and being tangent on the East to a line parallel with and 40.00 feet West, measured at right angles, of the East line of the West one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of said Section 23. e SAFECO Order No. 523298 SCHEDULE B, Page 3 Matters which may affect, the title to the herein described property unless eliminated by a Statement of Identity from all parties. NOTE: Your order can be expedited by furnishing such statement as soon as possible so that the records can be examined further and your escrow closing will not be delayed. NOTE: Said statement is essential to the closing of this title order as there exists several liens of record against individuals with similar naves of William Lee Miller, Norma Jean Callahan, Marilyn Louise Miller, Katherine Anne Miller, Walter James Miller and Dorothy Willene Jackson. NOTE: Said land is described on the County tax assessment roll for the fiscal year 1982-83, aq A.P. No. 142-122-06, CA 04-007. SAFECO r CK uRp aRv4ssoeatesC iiEneerngngTransportation Planning * Traffic UINTING11 T IS EACH DLvc,_CJrwnvr Sl'u't E June 17, 1983 Mr. William Lee Miller Wm. Lee Miller - Civil Engineer 24901 Camino Villa El Toro, CA 92630 JUN 17 193 P. 0. BoX 190 Huntington Beech, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Miller: Per your request, this letter has been prepared to address the percent of compact car spaces which would be required for the new business park located on Gothard Street in the City of Huntington Beach. For the project which includes Industrial/Manufacturing, Commercial, and office uses, 477 parking spaces are required per the City of Huntington Beach parking code. The project as proposed, is to include 479 total parking spaces ; 298 spaces are to be 8.5 feet by 19 feet and available for regular car and handicapped uses , and 181 spaces are to be 8 feet by 15 feet and for compact cars. Thus, approximately 38 percent of the total number of parking spaces are proposed to be compact parking spaces. A provision for the inclusion of up to 40 percent compact parking spaces in industrial developments is now being considered by the Huntington Beach City Council. The proportion of compact cars in the United States auto fleet has increased rapidly in recent years to a current level of approximately 50 percent. As shown in Table 1, the existing percentage of compact cars in the United States ranges from a low of 15 percent in Ohio to a high of 65 percent in California. Based on new car sales trends, and the retirement rates of older cars, the United States Department of Transportation estimates that compact vehicles may account for approximately 90 percent of the national fleet by 1990 . Based on a 1982 survey in the County of Orange on the length of vehicles as shown in Table 2, it was found that 45 percent of the vehicles on Orange County roadways were subcompact (10.5 to 14.5 feet) and 34 percent were compact (14.5 to 17.0 feet). 4864 Barranca Parkway * Irvine , CA 92714 * (7143 559-4231 As the proportion of compact cars in the vehicle fleet increases, many local, agencies have provided for the more efficient use of space by the inclusion of compact vehicles spaces in long term parking areas. The City of Irvine Parking Code has identified the maximum percent of parking spaces which may be designed as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet) by land use. The have set a 50 percent limit for industrial, manufacturing, and office uses. The City of Los Angeles permits up to 40 percent of the required parking spaces to be designated for compact car spaces (7.5 feet by 15 feet) for office and industrial uses. Although the current County of Orange Parking Code does not permit the use of "compact" car spaces for industrial and office uses, the County of Orange does permit up to 50 percent of required parking spaces for office and, industrial uses to be constructed with the "mid-sized" vehicle space designation (8.5 feet by 17 feet). A stall width of 8.0 feet provides a minimum clearance of 34 inches between two small cars that are reasonably well centered in a compact stall. As small cars have door swings between 21 and 25 inches at the first door stop (the point where the door hinge mechanism holds the door partly ajar), 8 feet provides for an adequate width between vehicles to minimize the probability of a smaller car parked next to a car with a longer door swing being knicked and causing small dents and chips to the paint. In addition, a stall width of 8 feet accommodates a larger range of small cars, and compensates for cars which are not always perfectly centered. As proposed, the project is to provide 38 percent of the required parking spaces as compact car spaces. Based on the percent of compact vehicles in vehicle fleet and other jurisdictions requirements, this percent appears to be adequate. The dimensions for the proposed compact car spaces are to be 8 feet by 15 feet, which is also considered adequate to service. the designated compact car vehicles. It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on this project. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance , please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. Table 1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF PARKED CARS AT SELECTED SHOPPING CENTERS Center State/Province Percent of Full-Size Percent of Compact Cromwell Square Connecticut 74 26 Long Ridge Mall New York 55 45 Wilde Lake Maryland 44 56 Village Green Midlothian Mall Virginia 78 22 Amherst Centre Ohio 85 15 Raintree Ohio 73 27 Shopping Centre University Plaza Kentucky 77 23 Shopping Center Colony North Carolina 59 41 Shopping Center Charles South Carolina 54 46 Towne Square The Galleria Texas 65 35 Brookvale California 40 60 Shopping Center Santa Maria California 49 51 Town Center University California 35 65 Towne Centre Yorkdale Ontario,63 37 Shopping Centre Fairview Mall Canada Ontario,60 40 Canada Source: Urban Land Institute, Parking Requirements for Shoppifta Centers, 1982. Table 2 1982 OMNGE COUNTY VEHICLE LENGTHS Vehicle • Percent of Length (feet) Vehicle Fleet Subcompact 10.5 to 11.0 .2 11.0 to 11.5 1.8 11.5 to 12.0 3.0 12.0 to 12.5 5.3 12.5 to 13.0 5.3 13.0 to 13.5 9.4 13.5 to 14.0 8.8 14.0 to 14.5 11.1 Subtotal 44.9 Compact 14.5 to 15.0 7.2 15.0 to 15.5 6.4 15.5 to 16.0 7.6 16.0 to 16.5 6.2 16.5 to 17.0 6.5 Subtotal 33.9 Intermediate 17.0 to 17.5 7.3 17.5 to 18.0 4.4 18.0 to 18.5 3.7 Subtotal 15.4 Standard 18.5 to 19.0 3.9 19.0 to 19.5 .9 Subtotal 4.8 Luxury 19.5 to 20.0 .9 20.0 to 20.5 0 20.5 to 21.0 .2 Subtotal 1.1 Souce: County of Orange,, EMA, 1982 Vehicle Length Study Sa'_eco Title Insurance Company has furnished you the fore- going information for your sole use and benefit, subject strictly to the understanding that this information has been obtained from the current County Assessor's Tax Roll. On this basis, the Company verifies that the information is correct, and assumes no liability in excess of the Lee charged for this report. Dated: 4/-1 U 11ll11111ll 1JW ill> .' -,j uuut; iyrmnTi1 llITTiiTTTfflii j - ifflfflfflillTlffFTm111TTIitIU I - GO/NaRD S,_, .9a:riL_4ts: 1 •.a. of 1 ••!la •>.1_sscs^.5 HUNTINGT??N BEACH a 'K O VL LOPMLiV1 tiERVICES JUN 171983 R 0. BoX 190 Hunt'n ton Beach,CA 92648 .rµ w .rt • ^ aU +o \.. aiue a EAST ELEVATION Scheme A Bid J SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Bid J SOUTH ELEVATION Scheme B HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES [ M . W F E S T Mb C MR A W BEP:7:IIACHImHUXINHHU,65MMH JUN 17 1983 P. 0. BoX 19u ,Inr{ 5e t7i:IL CA 226"" STOREFRONT S GLASS PARKED CONCRETE -FLUTED A SANDBLASTED CONCRETE OFFICE Bid J Bid J HASTINGS LUNDSTROM ARCHITECTSWo R NN ff'- EAST ELEVATION ul. UlL PS ll LAND C©E PAl11U IN-aPG J ; FWTFDFSANDEUSTED CONCRETE PAINTED CONCRETE STOREFRONT A CLASS NORTH ELEVATION Bid B/F Bid B/F INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL 0510 25 50 HASTINGS LUNDSTROM ARCHITECT100 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION ( aWC 9TLANC C ©I Mla° MY Bid I Bid DIG IljlpJfil flllT fc_ il Bt flll €}!ulilll f i";a» fb lrisl SOUTH ELEVATION Bid I STOREFRONT S GLASS PAINTED CONCRETE F1DTEO/SAN0DLASTED CONCRETE Bid DIG INDUSTRIAL 0 510 25 Bo 100 HHLUUANNSTgIINGS ARCHITECTS .7-w-. ..« ,. -u5x -4 '. ' á RaLI(ING9 .. ``' Ge G Michael Petyo & Associates., Inc. 17982 Sky Park Circle Suite "C" Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 540-8311 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 October 21, 1983 Subject: Zoning and location of flood control channel adjacent to M. Westland Co. property at Heil and Gothard. Dear Sir: We have been asked to locate the subject flood control channel, determine its current zonigg from the record, and develop a zoning history of the properties in the area. In reviewing the city's record we found that the M. Westland property was zoned M1 by the City Council on May 16, 1960. The zone change was graphically shown on the section map 23-5-11 attached to ordinance no. 772. Said ordinance and minutes of the May 16, 1960 meeting are attached as no. 1. The M1 zone extended eastward from the east line of the west ?z ofthe northwest '; of section 23-5-11 to the Pacific Electric Railway right - of-way. The property which is now tract 6181 was zoned A-1-X, general agriculture, upto 1965. Ordinance no. 1132 changed its zoning to R-A-O, residential agriculture, in April 1965. Said ordinance is attached as no. 2. In section 6 of that ordinance the same half quarter section line which is the west boundary of the M1 district is described as the eastern boundary of the residential district. In 1967 the property which is now tract 6181 was zoned RI, single fzmily residential, by ordinance 1278. Said ordinance is attached as no. 3. From the city's record we conclude that the boundary between tract 6181, which is zoned R1, and the industrial zoned property is the east line of the west of the northwest 4 of section 23-5-11. The next step we undertook was to confirm this conclusion from the tract maps of the area. In reviewing the maps of tract 6181 it may be observed that none of the -)d channel right-of-way is within tract 6181 adjacent to the M. Westland property. Th-i.. was surprising since 15 feet of the channel is within tract 6181 just north of the M. Westland property. The maps confirm that the east boundary of tract 6181 is the east line of the west 2 of the northwest ' of section 23-5-11. Said tract maps are attached as no.4. The tract just north of the M. Westland property is tract 5787 and shows a 15 foot drainage easement at the east side of said tract. Tract map no. 5787 is attached as no. 5. We next reviewed the recorded deed by which the city acquired the drainage channel Z. right-of-way in 1963. The deed may be found in the county records at book 6493 page 891. A copy of said deed is attached as no. 5. The legal description of the channel places it east of the east line of the west z of the northwest of section 23-5-11. No zone change actions appear iu the record which change the M1 zoning status of the flood control channel. The channel is therefore clearly within the M1 district. The city's current district map 26 clearly shows the half quarter section line as the boundary between the M1 and residential. Said district maps are attached as no. 7. Therefore, analysis of the record from four sources clearly shows the flood channel adjacent to the M. Westland property to be within the M1 zone. We have confirmed the recorded information b;; field surveys and. those field measurements confirm the flood control channel to be within the M1 district. We have prepared a simple drawing which graphically demonstrates our findings and is attached as no. 8. Sincerely, Michael Petyo, C.S. 4316 1 111 - FHinutL,, L1960 Scrcltzer Avenue and Bolsa Chica Road. Lv,an Ko,7c Mr. Evan Koppe, a developer of the property under cons Lion addressed the.. Council and said lie protests the recow.,,ended denial by the Planning Board of the chance to C-2 on the LO acre parcel because of the reasons used for its denial. He•requested that consideration be given by the Council to allow this zone change. urci LTan Councilman Waite then asked Mr. Koppe if he had any commercial venture planned to go into that area at the present 'time, and received an answer that they do not have due to necessity for the zone change before developing. There being no. further protests filed oral or written, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. -- P.M. on this day was the date set for the Public Hearing on .Zone Case No . 116 and requested the City 1 hl is fiearin,; Mayor Gisler announced that 9:15 o' clod,: Case Ho. 116 On a motion by Ylaite, seconded by Lambert, the City Attorney was authorized to prepare an ord- inance on Zone Case No. 115 approving the R-5 zone change and denying the C-2 zone change as outlined by the Planning Com- mission, Motion carried. al I after as possible on Monday the 16th day of May, 1960, for the ;1!` 1), Clerk to read the legal notice. The Clerk read notice 6f Hearing Zone Case No. 116 as pubLished ip the Huntington Beach News May 5th, 1960, setting a hearing for 9:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon there- purpose of considering a petition for change of zone relative to proposed change of district zoning from A-1 General, Agri- cultural District and Pi-1 Light Industrial. District to M-1 Li-,,ht Manufacturing District on a 39 acre parceL at the S E corner of SmeLtzer %vcnuc and Pacific Electric Railway right- o1-way, and from A-1 General Agricultural District and 1.1-1 LL'ht Industrial District to 11-L Light Manufacturing District -! -the Pal fic Electric i:ailwuy Right-of-way, and from A -1 General k)ii a 75 acre parcel at the S WV corner of SmeLtzer Avenue and :ti:,ricultural District and M-1. Light industrial District to C I TY O F HUNTU GTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Jim Palin, Development Services From Alicia M. Wentworth Director City Clerk, Subject Letter received re: Appeal 83-18/Date TPM 83-563/CE 83-26/ND83-21 - Opened 10/10/83 & Con't to 11/21/83 On 10/10 /83 the City Council continued open, a public hearing on an appeal filed by K. Dean Zitko & Inez Nuenfeldt to 11/21/83. Attached is a communication with attachments we received from Michael Petyo & Associates,Inc., regarding the zoning and location of flood control channel adjacent to M. Westland Co. property at Heil and "ithard. packet. He requested that this material be provided to Council in their 11/21/83 Gail Hutton, City Attorney HUNTINGTON BEACH ®EVE CC: Paul Cooky Public Works Director AMW:cb LOPMENTSERVICES NO'/ 7 1983 P.O. Box 190• Huntingo nBeach, CA,9264a ff1 4asa CITY OF HU T ING T O1 BEd INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMU$ATION Subject INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AT GOTHARD AND HEIL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED 0 Jarc,s W. Palin, Director DL-velopment Services Attached for the City Council's review at their November 21 meeting, is a copy of the approved Planning Commission minutes of September 7, 1983 indicating the findings and conditions for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 and Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 for the mixed use industrial development on property at thR'_ northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. The original RCA transmitted to the Council contained a copy of draft minutes. JWP:JRB:sr Attachment Smeltzer Avenue and Bolsa China toad. bo_ c Mr. Evan Koppe, a developer of the property under consideration addressed the Council and said he protests the recommended denial by the Planning Board of the change to C-2 on the 10 acre parcel because of the reasons used for its denial. He requested that consideration be given by the Council, to allow this zone change. _,•,i'll il`rnn ,;ii t Councilman qaite then asked Mr. Koppe if he had any commercial venture planned to go into that area at the present time, and received an answer that they do not have due to necessity for the zone change before developing. There being no further protests filed oral or written, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. On a motion by 4aite, seconded by Lambert, the City Attorney was authorized to prepare an ord- inance on Zone Case No. 115 approving the R-5 zone change and denying the C-2 zone change as outlined by the Planning Con- mission. Motion carried. Lc c earin . Mayor Gisler announced that 9:15 o'clock!' . L«5t: No. I Lb P.M. on this day was the date set for the Public Hearing on Zone Case No, 116 and requested the City Clerk to read the legal notice. The Clerk read notice of Hearing Zone Case No. 116 as published ip the Huntington Beach News May 5th, 1960, setting a hearing for 9:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon there- after as possible on.Monday the 16th day of May, 1960, for the purpose of considering a petition for change of zone relative to proposed change of district zoning from A-1 General Agri- cultural District and M-1 Light Industrial District to M-1 L i,?;ht Manufacturing District on a 39 acre parcel at the S L•" .corner of Smeltzer Avenue and Pacific Electric Railway right- ox-way, and from A-1 General Agricultural District and M-1 Licht Industrial District to M-L Light Manufacturing District on a 75 acre parcel at the S w corner of Smeltzer Avenue and the Pacific: Electric iailway Right-of-way, and from A-1 General ypricultural District and H-1 Light industrial District to L' n 't- :,1.' - ?ir1±ttcfi,',nV 16 , I On motion by Stewart, seconded by La Attorney was authorized to prepare an ordinance rezc in Zone Case No. 119 to R-1. Motion carried. 11-1 Light Manufacturing District on 2 parcels of approximat 60 acres total at the S W corner of Neil Avenue and Or Pay Electric Railway light'-of-way. .A. comrr-•-Uication from the liuntinctn Beach Chamhrr of Commerce Board of Directors recommenc in-- t zone changes set forth in Zone Case No. 116 was read bythc Clerk. There being no further protests Li oral or written, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. On a motion by Stewart, seconded h- Wells, the City Attorney was authorized to prepare an ordinr rezoning the area in Zone Case No. 116. Motion carried. Public fearinc' - Mayor Gisler announced that 9:15 o' Zone Case No, LL9Zone_-- P.M . on this day was the date sct the Public Hearing on Zone Case No. 119 and requested the Ci Clerk to read the legal notice. The Clerk read notice of Hearing Zo Case No. 119 as published in the Huntington Beach News May G 1960, setting a hearing for 9:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon the as possible on Monday the 16th day of May, 1960, for the pur considering a petition for change of zone relative to propos change of district zoning from R-4 to R-1 on 220 subdivided within three ac'joining subdivisions a portion of which adjoi• the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 1400 feet eas' Beach Boulevard and a portion lying on the east side of Beac' Boulevard approximately 660 feet south of Talbert Avenue - t subdivisions are commonly known as Huntington Crest ancdRohe, Rancheros Tracts. The Clerk reported that there were .- verbal or written protests filed for or against Zone Case No. There being no protests filed oral. r written, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. -18 J i OLU'TIOts' 110 104 A RESOLUTIOI-I OF THE -PLANNING CCI„l,:ISSIOI: OP THE CITY OP HUNTIIvGTON BEACH MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS POR ZONE CASE 110 116 'a'HEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, has held one public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review Zone Case No 116, AID ;'WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission on the basis of Land Use Surveys, Master Plan of Streets and Highways, land Use Plan, the existing P.E.R.R. Right-of-way, the proposed San Diego Freeway, and consideration given to the general public, does make the following determination. That the applicant's property submitted for change of zone does fulfill all the requisites deemed necessary for establishment of high type industrial development ';nd further that the City is in need of a balance between residential and industrial development which proposed zoning would establish a favorable and desirable per- centage of city acreage available for industry at suit- able locations. Id0W THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Section 1. That the City Planning Commission as a result of study and consideration concludes that the applicant's proposed changes of zone are sound planning in terms of achieving a sa- tisfactory balance between industrial, RES0lUTIO1; N0 104 commercial and residential se:veiopuiorit. And that special study sessions having been held will enable the applicant to further ascertain the problems and obligations which must be assumed. Section 2. That the City Planning Commission recommends approval of Zone Case No 116 to the City Council. Section 3. That the Secretary shall certify and attest to the passage and adoption of this reso- lution by a two thirds majority vote of the members of the Planning Commission. REGULARLY PAS3BD AND ADOPTED by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on the 19th day of April, 1960. ROLL CALL VOTE. AYE"S: Presson, Letson, Doutt, Kaufman, Thompson, Stang, Chairman Bazil. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION „IAS ADOPTED. ATTEST: Clifford E. Tripp Hobert Bazil Secretary Chairman hDll,i i C;, 31u Ili; c:;DI:: CZ c: T11 ciT of 'U. I::3 u.; Lii1r THE :i1TiTI1 ;GTO7' _7,,riC1 C DT 'Ai" C; , CCi3E BY A. Z '.i:I:JG a ,4T I :i.L fI , :,ICT a J -11 fi -fires as fcllc:•aLi: (2-7- 772 I 1:i ntin;ton Be :act_ ;ion 1. 1f,- t the Hum ir, 'on in ?ch Cr dinance Cc i:k hereby _.r R.cz cu by Lilt: ict 1..L:_: 23-,3-11, :r1:ich J°=ctioiini ,Jisty iz desir;n te;l J:.cticn 9211.39 1:unti..Lton Be.cn C-,'ir_nce Code, :rrl n-Id code ^ccticn as amended ,.h_11 read in ::or3^ 1.=4 The City Cc'mrcil of the do or=lain i:,3 "c_icvi:,. 3 The Ci t. Clerk :i;alI c-rtify to the r; csage end a1c1ti:'n of i,_ais o.r,l: _nce _nd i.: Il. _ .: t1 e ;;ante to be "12 ,.1:;`.rtic:: in to mtin;tcn Beacu :e,.,:, °iee:ly va.a4f j2r, rril_te u': licked and circtilateC i It ti-,e City of K'uztin,;ton 3r..ci C`!? ifcrlli and 3C days after -J of tion 1,1:er of,, came --hall take effoct •in be i:o "C.15e. y1w 7+ 1 ,t ichi n e;, y "ity co'1: 211 of rile CMG 20th .many of June 3 0. Ord. No. 772 STATE, OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss City of Huntington Beach I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meet- ing thereof held on the 6th day of June, 1960, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June, 1960, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Wells Lambert Stewart Waite Gisler. NOES: Councilmen: None. ABSENT: Councilmen: None. City Clerk an ex-of icio er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California PLANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA S MELTZEIi ZONING • 23-5-11 bw.< YIOp ^ .1140 .l.r..0 OYwlbbr IIOW"O$ CITY (AICC4 V . 774 I ICCO - !0.740 O.G .O 1R 9 921 .1,39 NOTE. LEGEND... w ••• -mn. pqD '14 . 7 t!. a] ln. rw .crvnw rmeM:l SUFFIX IEGENO- Em u .+a.n. n w. ... MI AI-X ml HEIL AI-X ml CLCJG • [.. AI-XCo+.uuvnv ooLAIO'XF CN wcs.' Nw Iz 3 ..u.. wro.. 2 J. 00 oAlX Ml-XILMI-X a,-x M1-X AI•X MI-X WINTERSBURG MI-X M I-X MI-X RI AI-X AI-X AIX AVER 4el AI-X Al-X C2 AYE T` r ill(tit IHIUlti Null _ilulu .-.-....ice-.,..-.-. fmm..._ 11LIJJ L iJ_I1i!:11W111111Ill1Wt11W wwl+yfu•.y+•.ru„c. d..i •lue •• • J • •. !Amer .••i. euw••1 mom. i+Ll _. ELt:Lt=1LlC wov...eo w+ie w•.tr tn.n, _•. j 1)Jl'1 , i. •i.uw I O .' lmn ri I I I. 1IIIIII III h w Iull 11Lilp & HUNTINGTON EACHDLVi;LOPMENT SL4tVIC1;,S au 17 1983 á IT FIT? Tj f-. - -P /(V -1'10 -,l / á ORDINANCE NO ,,772 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF H iiTIIIGTON BEACH AL:ENDIIIG THE HUNTIIIGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AI.;ENDING SECTIONAL, DISTRICT MAP 23-5-11 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Sectional District I,;ap 23-5-11, which Sectional District Llap is designated Section 9211.39 Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and said code section as amended shall read in words and figures as follows: 23-5-11 ) Section 2. The City Clerk.shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published by one insertion in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper, printed, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach, California and 30 days after the adoption theresf, the same shall take effect and be in force. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, this 20th day of June 1960. ATTEST: .-1-C.rc-a City C ark Iuayor TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date tega ding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was riot enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that the two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a larld'scape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor , a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr . Mayor and members of the Council , as stated the item was .continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will, answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel . We have received a copy of the letter from the developer 's legal council , Mr. Tim Paone . I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members . Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise posi °;_on as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/bui.- •g. setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentia ..ly a 45 foot seth,ick from the flood control channel . This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead , entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings . We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments . With that , Mr. Godfrey has a apnroved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had couple of vi.ewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on -..,t-ape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented. to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel overtop its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problen with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had grading plan for the site. Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr . Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go . Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas:So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the Flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel. for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. closed. .(tape 249) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation w'th the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the notion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately,30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the' interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems ,to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up wittheir ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of SB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would.sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ..... Bailey- Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: is that your only comment at this moment? Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pactinson: I, MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are r ing about. Is that what you are-referring to Pon? eattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 2',2) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with. that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Patin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the,18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows,'etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond theCUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the, tentative map for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right . I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved . (tape 282 ) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification, May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions. include conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent . He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley : That is fine then. Pattinson : Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions . It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions . However , it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly : I will certainly accept a motion on that . It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ..... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because.I don't see it myself. Unknown : Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer 'rainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No, I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the, Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should, the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be ..(tape 29.8) Patin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly Does that satisfy you Mandic:Fine Kelly: It has been moved and the 18 conditions of,appr-oval the, applicant. May I ask for M . Mandic: seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from your vote s please. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Patin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9'of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel mall. As I understand it the Council is Kelly: Mrs. Bailey , is that satisfactory? Bailey : As Public Works has suggested that is why saying i t. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83 -563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Pali: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow . Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only wave the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well , let's see . Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet ..... (321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps , that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my conc erns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight , if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. Finley : Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth : All Ayes (tape 329) Ord. No. 772 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss City of Huntington Beach ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected., qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach-end ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meet- ing thereof held on the 6th day of June, 1966, and was again read to said City Council, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June, 1960, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Wells Lambert Stewart Waite Gisler NOES: Councilmen: None. ABSENT: Councilmen: None. C ty Clerk an ex-o icio er, of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Pace iJUU - 'hnul-cc, "lay, 1(', 1 "('r 11-1 Light Manufacturing District on 2 parcels of ipprm:,,a' 60 acres total at the S W corner of Heil Avenue and tl,- Fa I I '7 Electric Railway Righr-of-way. I 1I the Public Hearing on Zone Case No. 119 and requested the Clerk to read the legal notice. Beach Chamhr)- of Commerce Board of Directors recommencinc . zone changes set forth in Zone Case No. 116 was read by the Clerk. g p oral or written, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. I G The Clerk read notice of Hearin); Zc Case No . L19 as published in the Huntington Beach News flay 1960, setting a hearing for 9:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon the On a motion by Stewart, seconded I WeLLs, the,City Attorney was authorized to prepare an ordin rezoning the area in Zone Case No. 116'" Motion carried.. Public fearinv Mayor Gisler announced that 9:15 o Zone Case No. t1 9 P.M. on this day was the date set as possible on. Monday the 16th day of May , 1960 , for the pui considering a petition for change of zone relative to prr'nor- change of district zoning from R -4 to R-1 on 220 subd ivided within three adjoining subdivisions a portion of which adjoi the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 140Q feet eas Beach Boulevard and a portion Lying on the east side of Beac Boulevard approximately 660 feet south of Talbert Avenue - t° subdivisions are con only known as Huntington Crest and Rnhe- Rancheros Tracts. A communication from the Iluntinrtc no further rotests LThere bein The Clerk reported :;: c the-re ,rrc verbal or written protests filed for or against Zone Case No There being no protests filed oral c the Mayor declared the hearing closed. On motion by Stewart, seconded by Li attorney was authori zed to prepare an ordinance rczc in Zone Case No . 1.19 to R-1. Motion carried. -"9 - ;1 . r ! , 1 t i ` N t i . l ' li r l i il s { { 1 F' I 1 . . n I o q; 'j • al t r 1 1 en . a' I I ! g ' f •, 1 , 1 . 0 ti l I I i, l G. '` T 0 1 b 'r I NE I L A V E : :r t _ a - + ! q u a n: q ! 9 ' ' S R t r r t t l k 4 - , " - , .Y /J r i I 1 ? 1 O PLANNING ZDNING $ 921139 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-11• CITY OF A J. IHUNTINGTON BEACH ..,.. , ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SLIELTZCR wt Ql aai q,.! 6O i r.r 6Uf Fc LtttWO m r.....v wen -. r. r. Ia MI Alit Al -X MIX HELL AIX AI-X u- A I-Xocr.v. wAIX-, MI-X-, M1 X t -, MI-X Al-X MIX WINTERSBUfG. MI RI Al -X AI-X C2 MI-X MIA M I-X d MIX 11X AV E t AI-X p >° AIX AIX AV E -;T L -41 AVE r-* ORDINANCE 4o.1132 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RELATING TO ZONE CASE No. 505; AMEND- ING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY RECLASSIFYING SECTIONS 8061.11 (Setlonal District Map 2-6-11) 9061.33 (Sectional District Map 21-5-11 9061.3 (Sectional District Map 22-5-11 , 9061.35 (Sectional District Map 23-5-11), 9061.36 (Sectional District Map 24-5-11) 9061.4 (Sectional District Map 26-5-11) 9061.41 (Sectional District Map 27-5.1.1) 9061.42 (Sectional District Map 28-5-11),9061.47 (Sectional Bistrict Map 34-5-11),9061.48 (Sectional. District Map 35-5-11) and 9061.49 (Section-al District Map 36-5-11). The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows$ Sectibn 1. That the real property in the City of Hunting- ton Beach, County of Orange, State of California, located southeast of Garfield. Avenue and Goldenwest Street and legally described as : All of Blocks D, C and D, Garfield Street Add- ition; Excepting therefrom -Lots 1 through 6 and Lots 22 through 38 of Block. B are hereby reclassified from A-1_X General Agricultural District as adopted by Interim Oidinanoe No. 668 to B -A-O Residential Agricultural District combined with oil. Section 2. That the real property in the City of Hunt ington,Beech, County of Orange, State of California, located generally between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue and between Graham Street and Springdale Street and legally described ans The east 264 feet of the SEJ, NEJ , NE}, Section 21-5-110 and Ord. No. 1132 Beginning at the northeast corner of the SE, of Section .21-5-11, said corner being the in- tersection of Springdale Street end Hail. Avenue; thence South 89°41' 00" West a distance of 278.57 feet; thence, Sputh,00 19'00" East a distance of x+00.35 feet; thence, South 29 41' 00" West a distance of 214.26 feet-, thence, South 0°44'161° E8st a distance of 216.19 feet; thence, North 8.9 15'g4" East a distance of 390.00 feet; thence North 0 44'16" West a distance of 799.24 feet to the point of beginning,, and Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 21-5-11, said corner being the centerline inter- section of Springdale Street and Warner Avenue, thence, South 89 37'00" West 981.91 feet to the intersection,with the northwesterly line of the Orange County Flood Control District R/W, said northwesterly line being a non-tangent curve con cave to the southeast having a radius of 1098.00 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 690 42'40" an arc -distance of 1335,92 feet to the intersection with the east l5ne of Section 21; thence South 0°44' 16" East, 787.75 feet to the point of beginning. is hereby reclassified from A-1-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No, 668 to HA Residen - tial Agricultural District. Section 3. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach , County of Orange , State of California , located generally between Heil Avenue and Warner Avenue on the East side of Graham Street and legally described as: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 21-5-11, said corner being the centerline .inter- section of Springdale Street and Warner Avenue, thence, South 89 37 '00" West along the south line of the said SE4 a distance of 1202.93 feetJ,o the true point of beginning ; thence North 0 45'0" West a distance of 237 .00 feet ; thence South 8 9 37'00" West a distance of 120 .00 feet; thence, North 0 45'10" W8st a distance of 423 .31 feet, thence, North 89 37'9" East a distance of 661.59 feet;thence , North 0 '53" West a distance of 1533.07 feet; thence, South 89° 41 '00West a dis - tance of 427 .00 feet ; thence, North 0044,53" Ord. No.1132 West a distance of 441,30 feet to a point. on the north line of said SE4f thence, South 89°41'00" West along said north line to the-vest line bf said SEJ-; thence southerly along the west line of said SE* to a point on the south, line of said SEa; thence, North 89°37'06" East to the true point of beginning; Excepting therefrom the%northerly 440.00 + feet of the NWNWIL, SE*, Section 21-5-11- Is hereby reclassified from A-•1-X General Agricultural Dis-' trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to H-1 Single Family Residence District. Section 4. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, located generally between Edinger and Warner Avenues and between Springdale and Goldenwest Streets and legally described as The SEI,, NWQ, Section 22-5-11, and The North 325+feet of the West 528k feet of the NW4f Section 22-5-i1, and The Wj, NWT, SWa, Section 22-5-11, and The North 529+feet of the NEI,, SE*, SWI, Section 22-5-11, and The South 281.06 feet of the West 281+ feet of tha SW), Section 22-5-11, and The SEJ, SWj, SEA, Section 22-5-119 and The NJ, SWI, SEI., Section 22-5-11, and All of the NE I , Section 22-5-11; Exoepting Tracts 5557,4380,43241 Also excepting the East 882+ feet of the North 800+feet, and The East 1650+feet of the SJ, NE4f Section 22,.5-11 is hereby reclassif ied from A-1-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to HA, Residential Agricultural District. urd. No. 1132 Section 5. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange, State of Californi a, iocated generally between Edinger and Warner Avenues end between Spring- dale and Goldenwest Streets, and legally described ass 320+ The South/feet of the West 280+feet of the SW4, NWg, Section 22-5-11, and The Wj of the South 3/4 of the NE SWi,, Section 22-5-11, and The South 428+feet of the NJ of'the East 662 feet of the West 974+feet of the NE,,Suction 22-5-11, and The North 500+feet of the Si of the East 680+. faet'of the West 992 feet of the NEI,, Section 22-5-11, is hereby reclassified from A.,1..X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No, 668 to B-l Single Family Residence District, Section 6 . ' That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, ch, County of Orange, Stetd of California , located generally between Edinger end Warner Avenues and between Gold- enwest Street and Beach Boulevard and legally described set The Wj, NW1, Sec°;;1on 23-5-1.1and The Wj, NW4, SW4, Section 23-5-11, and. Beginning at the southeast corner of the SEA, Section 23-5.11 thence northerly along the Last line of said SE* to the intersection with the North line of the Sj, SE4 of said Section 23, thence westerly along said line to a point in- tersecting With the southeasterly right-of-way line of the Ora-age County Flood Control District Channel C5-4; thence southwesterly along said R/W line to a point intersecting with the east line of the Wi, Wj, SE,-, said Section 23; thence Ord. No.1132 southerly along said east line to a point inter - secting with the south line of the SEj of said Section 23; thence easterly along said south line to the point of beginning ; exce p ting therefrom the east 185 feet of the-south 660' feet of the SEA of said Section 23, is hereby reclassified from A-1®X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No.668 to RA Residen.* tial Agricultural District. Section 7. That the real property in the City of'1unt- inagton Beach, County of Orange, State of California, located at the northeast corner of Werner Avenue and B Street and le- gaily described as: Lots 1 through 24, Block C, Tract 5 28; and -EULots 1 through 24, Block D, Tract 528; Lots 1 through 12, Block E, Tract 528, is hereby reclassified from A_l-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to H-1 Single Family Residence District. Section 8. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange,, State of California, located between A and B Streets on the north side. of Warner Avenue and legally described ass Lots I through 24, Block B , Tract 528, id hereby reclassified from A-1-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District with setback provisions. Ord. No.1132 southerly along said east line to a point inter- secting with the south line of the SEJ of said Section 23 ; thence easterly along said south line to the point of beginning ; exce p ting therefrom the east 185 feet of the -south 660e feet of the SEA of said Section 23, is hereby reclassified from A-1®X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No.668 to RA Residen.* tial Agricultural District. Section 7. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, located at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and B Street and le- gaily described as: Lots 1 through 24, Block C, Tract 5 28; and Lots 1 through 24, Block D, Tract 528; Z Lots l through 12, Block E, Tract 528, is hereby reclassified from A-1-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to R-1 Single Family Residence District. Section 8. That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange,, State of California, located between A and B Streets on the north side. of Warner Avenue and legally described gas Lots l through 24 Block B, Traot 528, id hereby reclassified from A-1-X General Agricultural Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to E-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District with setback prov i sions. urc. No, 132 Section 16.- That the real property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange, State oI' California, located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 300 feet east of each Boulevard and legally described as: The N, NW;, NW,, Section 36-5-11,; Excepting the West 330 feet thereof, are hereby reclassified from R_4-X Suburban Residential Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance,No. 668 to E-1 Single Family Residence District. Section 17. That the reel property in the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, located northeast of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue and legally described as: The SWJ, NWJ, Section. 36_5-11; Excepting there- from Tracts 2558 and 4027; and also excepting the East 132 feet of the South 495 feet, is hereby reclassified from . R-4-X Suburban Residential Dis- trict as adopted by Interim Ordinance No. 668 to BA R esident- ial Agricultural District. Section 18 . That Sections 9061.1.1 (Sectional District Map 2 -6-11), 9061.33 (Sectional District Map 21-5 -11), 906l.34 (Sectional District Map 22-5 -11), 9061.35 (Sectional District Map 23-5-11) 9061,36 (Sectional Dist rict Map 24-5 -11), 9061.4 (Sectional Distii•ct Map 26-5-11), 906 1,41 (Sectional District Map 27 -5-11) 9061.42 (Sectional District Map 28-5-11), 9061.47 (Sectional District map 34 -5-11), 9061.48 (Sectional District Map 36 -5.11) and 9061.49 (Sectional District Map 36 -5-11)arb Ord. No.113-, hereby emended , and as emended, shall read in words and figures, as followsa PLANNING ZONING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5--II 4, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED OY TORE CA!( 101 R4 Ilt,u1.(14. Mt W.111'.p t10. , r 11111•. 10154'.••i,0111W5 (Of4 (11 1.11fS011.1 n RA MI MI MI RA RA 03 9061.35 '4011, ••w.0 q w11 C2 I }.. •}1•rre bA.c t r we n.N!1."F 41i4i119* N•4urm+ jlr• na..lt.0fl'"l lcr ro •M }.wI1o16 - •4,04 Mf 11,'•l,rllrf0 ,.uu.l •.sw ow p •M•M0 M• 1.w4I I.4 w M• •014010 lgrlwr . 4,nn'.s040 •n •M Snt fM0004!0.M POptry'=,4 r.u11n , w1 Ni b Iwo Io.IM •.Mf q •wO 4••0• Ir. w• ra0 •0 •M. 11 O •h 1'.11Y 0.0 10 •00 w11 e.Ay O /MVv^((rrr <•11 n•OOlOtMIwOqOn11II.11 %INY[D pp II it Oy1 T9G Iqf.. ••f fiD k). ` dp to lL R3 0 RI RI - RI f I" RI RI C2 R3 RI llal NP 4r, 1011 w+r.l.w n+1 ©] r. v1 MIS 1A1 +.n . - 1.1'fl nom. •i l'I+nw+a r'11 } 1W 0 • 1` R3 RZ-C4 R2 4, R2 CA e RI 0 RA C2 Ord. No.1132 Section 19. The City Clerk shall certify to the pass- age and adoption of this ordinance and shall. cause the same to be published by one insertion in the Huntington Beach News,. e weekly ne3speper, printed, published and circulated in ti'tP City of Huntington Beach, Califo1nia, and thirty (30) days after the adoption thereof, the came shall take effect and be in force. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, this 50 day of April 1965- v ATTEST' $ 1 ler 6yor APPRO AS TO JAMftS D.. PLU T, ty ttorndy Asst.Ctty Attorney Ord. No. 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange ) as City of Huntington Beach ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elec ted, qualified and a^ting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five ,; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a Tegula .r-meeting thereof held on the 150 day of _March , 1965, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held: on the 50 day of April , 1965, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of 611 the members of said City Council,. AYES: Councilmen: Gisler, Stewart , Lambert, Shi ley NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Welch City lerk and.; x -officio L1 k of the City council of the City of Huntington, Beach , California I I ORDINANCE No. 1278 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RELATING TO" ZONE CASE No. 66-39; AMRNDING THE HUNTING- TON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY RECLASSI?PING DM_26 (Sectional District tap 23-5-11). The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. That the reel property in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, lo- cated at the southeost corner of Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue and legally described as follows,' Lots 1-285 incl., Tract 6181, Miscellaneous Maps, Book 227, pages 12-17, are hereby reclassified from R-A Residential,Agrlcultural District to R-1 Single Family. Residence District. Section 2, That DM-26 (Sectional District Map 23-5-11) is hereby amended, anti as amended shall read in words and figures as followst 3 Ord. No. 1278 Section 3•the City Clerk shall certify to the pass- ageand Adoption of this ordinance and.shall caruie the same to be published by one insertion in the Huntington Beach News , a weekly newspaper printed, published-and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach , California , and thirty (30) days after the adoption thereof+ the same ohall take effect Find`be in force. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City 'Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California , at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of January , 196 7 . eyor ATTEST!i C•1, y APPROVED .A5 TO FORMS I DALE B H ity Clerk Ord. Ao. 12 78 STATE OF CALTI?ORN1A COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss: CITY OF HUNT1NGTON 11EACH I ), PAUI, C, JONES, the duly elected, qualified, and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do, herehv cerlifv that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington [leach is seven: that the foregoingL, ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meetins thereof held on thr`19tlr day of December- , 19GG , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting 1hvrr,nf held on the 3rd day of January 19G7 , and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Coen , Bartlett Gis] er Kaufma n Green Stewart NOES: Councilmen: Nciilc AIISENT: Councilmen: Shipley City Clerk and ex-officio of the City Council of thr Cid of Huntington Beach , Calilorrrin SCALE 1'• 111' I I TRACT No. 61 8 1 lA TO /1.11 If A0111Liii Ift(1, IUA1T If it i 16f, (IUfltkI) III till w.FU (((ft till 'ILT' IIt A[Ill, ill,!1111.111 It till ._. llr Ir I1 ImY. I 41 VIU(C[f )g1AWJI1161 it Fit. till ( F 11Aff1 114111- inlen`nl it 1014)-` 0(1111 ill it fill)F till itof Ire= ( lIlioft I1.gl (11111, Ill IL 4111) SHEET I OF t SHEETS • C • , •1111 111(11, 11 inn - lnllll III lltill) ---( A 1. 1 t l v M t l t, li'mr Ill it full lllll Al lfl roll i, Nt III W I)AI1HKI11 Ill From tlal I UU JOIYFY 1 l lF I. I- I' • Ill' -~i(Fif'f1i 11fAIF ii.ir is It'( s f I 1 1 6 I. t Y t111* - - AYf1U(. a_% )41.S 1 51 r 227/13 11 rl till ni (111ll i t till it I& IIU1 tyl ou(c tl For I I I I t I(- III tl 1161 air1ncl [it ill (11t ((tnl( if i114i11r1i l Imultir 111Wllitl NNl UI' IIll Iii IIl) 11 IF 1111111 IF ((4(14 111111 YI11NFii I16f riltll it 1.1 .111, I III 414(1 ill (; Illrli tf (ltlltl, a1 i(lI•( t 111(.1 1 I1li[vll I.1I I(II41 r1(i111 111/,iii qI 11111.1 ljln 1111:I11I(1(4111ifll tft11A111,1llll (1(4 (l11V till! l ill 1111111 11111111 Pill It 111 fill(/ llalllnll lllllnlllfn u1 I ,1111111111111,1(1(1 /1111111uwnl ('((III (ii 1111Y1111 11111 111111 17111 II(il till (1111 it Illlllll(I 11 (1(1111tn111t1A11 t.t 6 SCALE 1- •(1' 90I I.1 111 Illillljl11(1 11'III 'I(II tI (UtY(• 1111 0 1.1.11 11'11/ - 11111111 227/1535 TRACT NO" G I 8 ! 11 1`0 MY Of 109111 ¢11111 11,1(0, (11919 061gAti •0101111 SHEET I OF I S4EETS 9ez eaRl11{11Ill (IN till 'd l' I .1 I r it I if t III 11{ I I I I MI ll I r I I I,11 ur ..wl Ir-.i c t ;• lu t t r tl t I tza: t 6•ac 6 L 0 7 N z6r,ct it l! 1:7.)36 51_s. w 169 111 166 I{S `3161_'Iftt$lit 191 ^_ tt! ISl MS ,,, -- 1 II I "_ --ac U II It I 111-- ' 4r,.1 ' to fSIUEiAiLS ORIYE Ill F I xr Ilrlllr du 1,Irltdrr =J r_ 191 171 19 = II p lit n•xy e -uLI 1) t rlli 1 111 _ s 1 I 1 1 1 M' U •,< ``i,, L'tl IrIII IWlI11 IL. ! ICl t< C 11111/111/ ' I $IIII11ls's 1 y 11111 1•• , 2(t - t5! °-11 p a- ISI, It{ I 111111 S =w • 11111111 s y -1 III I IU - t 1I ell [21117 t -r"1111 Sf(ItOAiT00D PRtY&IIr _ 141 ZOE 201 t41 tit 101 110 If?lit .1. s ISS Iii MLL{iii - ° = 116 3 1St a lit _ '' 11111 - fittt 160 - ILI 01216t-til -lit tuulult 118 .., DU 11 1'l ,N4il tlOIioufi M y l{1il1 3 tS0 - 1111211E 'XIw lax w.u' 218 zI9 lit IS1 - ucwu 'II 111 r'DalveII'' Y {{ I t 111{,, I r I•• fl 'k.lit ll l1 I1rn Ir 1U prlit 11 tii, W O itf 111 ttl 1' 1 1 -. yfillIrl tilllL 1 ' III Ittti- tr, p3 lit (/1 19IF Ilrl 19 ISO 11• 3 1 ! 227/Yt. SCALZ I NIT 1!1 11111 11 111111,1. YIIIMI II It(11u/ urlnn mm, off jell[ I I _ nn u SHEET S OF i SHEETS .1 982 nnii, imlm i l+u wntl... IOh '1 i I. 1.. 223 244 -um 2U t11 225 tit 226 _(11 'tZI lit 226 t 1H 11 229 tit 111111' 11 111 10) " IId •-• 0V1t 41 Illq 1 y 4 : bU11L16'off T--Ivir•T% r(1 if T H' 230 = ll1 233 111`w{nm o A 11-Y .n n .U if r 1111.111 (fill TRACT N®. 1 8 '4 14F (Irv IF 4 4 41116 11(( Ili(' (lI TT II lIii6 4,1 (itItI 411 III till mud i(IIr 'I r1`till (illt I I tl IY1117151 1.1 fill 1I14641 259 tlo U1 III y3 tit 163 l64 116 lit tit lit 11141 _ [fill,, _ MIlll fill 1 11 I If'" Ir i ll 1411 Il6 -=III ''1l6 in Irk 1{ 110./1111 _k. 11it t 4,i1 J ,yC R `11 _ O19* N 411 .1 l J (r no1 L G it tit 4•IIor I III fit '_T ?nrulrl' 21 5 III lit 1 ". 1 1:1 Ill lit fu_$ U;4.. Il'll tii IH 1511111111155111 •; 111'plr111111.11111111515111 111 IU!1 Ills Ill ,Jf lit -_Ilo$; 11! h to,III ••I°4(a - 1111•", da ' Nt: i I1 `l IPtit \'111 IT °llf 1..04(• ° of SI it till` - uuu'II (-7I E IA IiI III 111111 IC11fill ,11111111111112111 Ill 11 111 ril i f 111 `II I(Ill(1 11 llll 111111 111!11 II``1111 111111111111 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 11 111(111 11 1/1111111/ 111 ORIOINAL TRACT To 787 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CCUNTT Or ORANGE • STATE Of CALIYONNIA JaYVww I l1 YO.tr. 1 /uJ ,G YN0.W LLY.TrL/Y' t.r I r Y lllw 11000 /)! :N ..AVEMU! , r .l, il• r.: :, J \ tr 'lr 0 6 J`1,IIl, I4; r^nu..ul .o.r.n..o lawn :IZi.1un ., ru.. ---_ Iiutf.+ti uur....•.•n .r n.wl....... l.rfwlN -•--•.- I SMt.4 1t• 111 W S•.rY .1 •.I Yw W NS/Nllr _.tV.IrVrYYI I+unow 4 \ L ti. .I6 •SeNRI uw_ 53 3 Y• A. (Md.'e wSr yy . 11 rt GFrf uSu uli,.w 11.11y)+lS W 1uwr .i.'Wr4rIU111 21 3/25 OYOErxorz were 6406 JVS a ee'..... ,; IUl-:.VIM IL I; Ittw r i9Ls r Nft._ .rre S nt.. CIRCLE p l eSn *1I a 7 r G v IF 3 C, 0 q° ` p4 + 9 yp pp . u M ° ° 8 }D . 3 N ®p - if d 1 r ' + C yy ? 3 ° r t p Y p iri d h b J C7 qr V l . . _ r ° .R V Rf N 1 - P ` ! 1 Y 0 C l 7 Y r / C i . 1 A Y i ' Vf J ; r ` • • , w Q LL L ^o G r $ r Y 7 p I F p o L e ' 6 g o a r oo ` o ^a r. Y ri V rl P . (7 7 ' pp 9 r P aC r . py s p tA i r - 1L / M i N l l ' 4 ® i ! 4 3 D af o sa p r e C - ° O r 7 0 ( 9 q V O i1 7 c r r ®+ ? IT Mg r . ee = p p Bp Q a 3 B r 13 2 r7 o a 9 t vi DS • Se P r 1 1 g$ R: E A $ I N » V_ f l i p f f f I N r ? F, 1 , s. -A A Ap t f" 6r P 0 6 a D Y v Y S f ` I . . ti c t L i g - l i ' l , R I F R & r; l • Lf ; t 9 r Z i 0.e 6 C e ta 4 e g y v E t a - y y s r I i $ l p g q q q r a pR aE $r a e 4 , A 8 a j r A p g E s it k s aR b ` r ' 8 . S1 1 4 $ w s y S6 G 6 X6 9 Ii " 7 3 1 k 4 ;r 3 a S or o 6b + 7 g r a ° h : r p ° M 6 r M g, ¢ it 1 "r y e ^ e g " so g ar r = aa la Y ' K E $ < " - a s ° 5- v = I c g E = , r 8 a W 8 1 . I: w 0 4 F /01i irU ,+1 ai lUrpJ7Y Pus w 'A8 nw -v mwr ,1..:.1, .. .,y.1 , YD11YU0I 'i''' 1,, STC:f,T14 ' t: fit.) i• OP7 lrtplp ' 44QWc )1V ,r a •,w [.u i+i, we t*IUU at -193 by1 f eTt LrOMOtn •i e+ oUlsT OP , and vi e, l= tnr {' tv (t Hcr •tineton Rent Ii, a munic lnal carp -r- KIM6493 It ,887 .._., ,ge.•rp rre thv nrdrr o f Che (l iv Council of the rt lv ,3318 is e„ ctrtIfv that the interfnt to real property conoeyed 1-v this :.,•• dated H*rch 25, 1963, fnari: John i_ 4urdy, Jr., and Norma 1,, Mhirdy. •+ a,4 qn -;rl 131,d ...,., she :;ranter , can•--:• r,. rte" r•4 a t duly moth,+r•-ed nf1T„ F to?h 1 1T1 _1) VNTIW WI T EACH 4y; lv SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (RANGE COUNTY; CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP EOINOER t,lll l(_l ([l l l 1 1,150EE CF-R to n, 1lui Miw Y1nl WARNER CF-C ft3t r. 23-5-I I CF-E ISWNf F MittI AVE AVE L m PLANNING ZONING DM 26 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP ('l OF H i U N T1 N GTO BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE to,.,,,, l...,.••/• - .l•N, "'$, N•..OQ,E!•M,II M,.;h S r y, Y•1i, 10.14 . •l7,, .24 iI „,{, Fa•1 0.x •10.1, A.KM10•L,fP ol, I EOINUR1 IOf Cr' .ierlT+r RI C4 R3 0 C4 CF-C MI MI I R5 q1 95 R3 R3 43 AH I13 1 R3 R3 Cf"-E 111 n• )1c• ICWRI CF-R MI 23-5-11 C2 CP. C2 C4 RI R RI R RI R3 CF-R CF-E X151 •• 1.1 5 15 I•': 'u O •1u,.• l4EryO vldp I-tI r. -' ..mans .. r.lM47 . MM+M 1.wm, 'IMnMiFti 1 .t6Mw 4 i I ,anI%.m`MMra. tz M5 MSm MMCr. R1MOIM.47 • rai .T1.wl, 1V5Mtw g01.1475•SI Jf 1MI +Mt, ,It IY1flVaC15M1.• IJ .tMrMn !Mann MW.a 5,471.! M7C R3 R3 R3 IIIANW ,70004,1 - R2 R2 R2 C4 Q W Grant Deed TO 405 C 13481 THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDE[i.ATIO1. receipt of svl ich is hereby acknowledged. JOHN A. MURDY, +7R., and NORMA L. MURDY, husband and wife, herek i;RANTIJt In the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation , all of our interest in the following descrilwd real properh, in tiv en"nIN of Orange . ldlc of California: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-°uarter (NWY4) of Section 23, ownship [ South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, Orange County, Calif :rnia; thence Westerly, along the North line of above mentioned Southeast one-quarter (S;4) of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 23, 15.00 feet to a point on the West Right of Way line of the Pacific Electric Railroad, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing Westerly, along the North line of the above mentioned Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW14) of Section 23, 1305 feet more or less to the Northwest corner of the Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW-) of Section 23; thence Southerly, along the West line of the Southeast one-quarter (SE-34) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW-14) of Section 23, 1320 feet more or less to a point on the East-West quarter line of Section 23; thence Southerly, along the West line of the Northeast one-quarter (NE4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW4) of above mentioned Section 23,12];.;.611 feet more or less to a tangent point, said point being 105.36' feet North measured at right angles from the South line of the Northeast one-quarter (NE4) of the Southwest one-quarter (sw) of Section 23, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve of 85.00 feet radius concave to the Northwest; thence Southwesterly, along la st''mentioned curve through an angle of 31°--117'-17", 117.16 feet to a tangent point, said point being the beginning of a tangent curved 115.00 feet radius'concave to the Southeast; thence Southwesterly, along last mentioned curve through an angle of 31°-117'.-1711, 63.80 feet to a point on the South line of, and 30 feet Westerly from the Southeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (N1114) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW`) of Section 23; thence Easterly, along the South line of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW4) of Section 23, 30.00 feet to a point, said point bein the Southeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (NWq) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW4) of Section 23, said point also being toe beginning of a curve of 85.00 feet radius concave to the Southeast; thence Northeasterly, along last mentioned curve through an angle of 31°-117'-17", 47.16 feet to a tangent point, said point being the beginning of a tangent curve of 115.00 feet radius concave to the Northwest; thence Northeasterly, along last mentioned curve through an angle of 31°-h7'-17", 63.80 feet to a tangent point, said point being 105.36 feet North measured at right angles from the South line of the North- east one-quarter (NE-4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SM4) of Section 23, said point also bein g east and one-quarter ter 30.00 Eq) feet of East measured at ,ri ght angles f rom the West on . a line line of parallel Northeast to Section 23; thence Northerly, along last described line, 1082.64 feet more dr less to a point on a line parallel to and distant 132.00 feet South measured at right angles from the East-West quarter line of Section 23; thence Easterly, along last described line, 10.00 feet to a point; thence Northerly, along a line parallel to and distant 40.C0 feet East measured at right angles from the West line of the Northeast one-quarter (NE;) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW4) of Section 23, 132 feet to a point on the East-West quarter line of Section 23; thence Northerly, along a line parallel to and distant 40.(0 feet East measurd at right angles from the West line of the Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of Section 23, 132 feet to a point on a line parallel and distant 132.00 feet measured at right angles from the East-West quarter line of Section 23; thence Westerly, along last described. line 10.00 feet to a point; thence Northerly, along a line parallel to and distant 30.00 feet East measured at right angles from the'West line of the Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of Section 23, 11.1x8 feet more or less to a point 110.00 feet South measured at right angles from the North line of the Southeast one-quarter (SE-41) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of Section 23; thence Northeasterly 14.14 feet more or less to a point 40.00 feet East measured at right angles from the West line of the Southeast one-quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of Section 23, said :point also lying on a line parallel to and distant 30.00 feet South. measured at right angles from the North line of the Southeast one-quarter (SEA) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW^) of Section 23;thence Easterly, along iv,t +IOO( rt t oit 'I t no, ; in root ultY (ir loon to It point on a line parallel to and distant Y0.0U tHet West measured at right angles from the East line of the 'Nest one-half of the Southeast one-quarter (SEq) of the Northwest one-quarter (SKI,) of Section 23; thence Southerly along last described line 3.00 feet to a point on a line parallel to and distant 33.00 feet South measured at right angles from the North line of the Southeast one-quarter (SEA) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW) of Section 23; thence Easterly, along last des -4 cribed line, 180 feet to a point on a line parallel to and distant 90.00 feet East measured at right angles from the West line of the East one-half of the Southeast one- quarter (SE4) of the Northwest one-quarter (M'tw) of Section 23, thence Northerly along last described line 3.00 feet to a point on a line parallel to and distant 30.00 feet South measured at right angles from the North line of the Southeast one-quarter (SEt) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW4) of Section 23; thence Easterly along last described line 555 feet more or less to a line parallel to and distant 15.00 feet West measured at right angles from the North-South quarter line of Section 23, said line also being the West Fright of ?ay line of the Pacific F,]actric Failroad: thr'nrr Northerly. alonr- la'+ ua5cr3 ,,oecL .tine, 30.00 feet Jo the Trio Pni,* ,f' 0r.-+ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 3318 F1OK6493o8J4 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF CITY OF HUNTINGrON BEACH IN OFFICIAL NECJHDS OF ORANGE i.OUNTY, CALIF. 9:05 AM AFR 3 1963 FREE RUBY McFARLAND, County Recorder SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE n 80o 6493 FA, c8.97 This is to certify that the interest in rea'. property conveyed by this dPed date c`Mnr h 25, 1963, from John A. Murdd. Jr. , and Norma L. Murdv, husband and'.taq_, tn'the City of Huntington Reach, a municipal corpora- , ing,ton'6eaet o ?April 1, 1:963, and the Grantee consents to recordation tion, is hereb ' 'accepted by ordor of the City Council of the City of. "lint- therer5f -by, J19, duly authorized officer. Pat'Anri l 2, 1963 CITY nF HUNTIN f-TO EACH - 282 Page 411 - Minutes, April 1, 1963 Arterial Hwy, Agree. The Clerk presented a transmittal from the Presented City Engineer of Arterial Highway Financing Agreements Nos. 171, 172 and 177, for Council consideration. Agreements On motion by Stewart, seconded by Welch, Council Approved approved Arterial Highway Financing Agreements Nos. 171, 172 and 177, as recommended by the City Engineer, and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same on behalf of the City. Motion carried. Engr. Req. Trans. The Clerk presented a communication from the From Water Fund City Engineer requesting Council permission to transfer funds in the amount of $14,277.78 from the Water Fund to the Developers of Seahaven, for off-site and oversize water mains constructed by them, Pmt. Auth. On motion by Welch, seconded by Gisler, Coun- To Seahaven Dev. ciL authorized the payment of $14,277.78 from the Water Fund, to Deane Brothers for refund of off-site and oversize water mains constructed by them. Motion car- ried. Reimb.-Macco Realty The Clerk presented a transmittal from the From Drainage Area #7B City Engineer of Resolution No:-1748, autho- rizing the transfer of funds in the amount of $52,524.86, from Fees Collected for Drainage Area 47B, for participation in a cooperative project, payable to Macco Realty Company. Res. X1748 On motion by Stewart, seconded by Welch, Re- Adopted solution No. 1748 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF IHUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE DRAINAGE AREA 47B FUND," which had here- tofore been submitted to the Council and read by them, was passed and adopted by the following toll call vote: AYES: Councilmen: Wells, Gisler, Stewart, Welch, Lambert NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT; Councilmen: None kuimb.-Moran Constr. The Clerk presented a transmittal from the From Draina e Area SA City Engineer of Resolution No. 1749, which would authorize the transfer of funds in the amount of $14,190.00 from Fees Collected for Drainage Area 45A, for participation in a cooperative project, payable to James A. Moran Con- struction, Inc. Res. #1749 On motion by Welch, seconded by Stewart, Re- Adopted solution No, 1749 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE DRAINAGE AREA 45A FUND," which had here- tofore been submitted to the Council and read by them, was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen: Wells, Gisler, Stewart, Welch, Lambert NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: 'None R/W Deed Acc. On motion by Stewart, seconded by Gisler. John A.-Murdy, Jr. Council accepted a deed for right-of-way of storm Channel C5-SC2 across the Murdy property between the Pacific Electric rirht-nf-wav and parksite, from John A.Murdy, Jr. and Norma L. Murdy to the City, and directed the Clerk to record same with the County Recorder of Orange,Cnnnty. Motion carried Water Rights Deeds Acc. On motion by Welch, seconded by Stewart, Tracts 4399 - 4742 Council accepted deeds for water-rights with- n Tracts o. an No. 4742, and directed the Clerk to record sar- with the County Recorder of Orange County. Motion carried. 9W Qrmll W 13070 OLD BOLSA CHICA ROAD WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714-894-3896 Mike Adams City of Huntington Beach Development Services Division 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 June 29, 1987 Subject: Parking requirement for Pyro Comm Systems, 16351 Gothard, Suite D. Dear Mike: As we discussed, the parking calculations for the first phase if our project at the Northwest corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street were based upon 1 space per every 500 SF. We have not yet built one industrial building, building i, and one office building, building J, but we have already constructed the parking for those buildings. Therefore, we currently have constructed 167 spaces over those required for the buildings presently constructed. The parking spaces that currently are constructed total 481. All parking spaces are in common for all buildings and tenants. In the case of Pyro Comm eSystems we certainly have enough parking spaces to permit them to utilize greater than 10% for offices. We understand that in the future, when phase I is close to full occupancy, we may have to add a parking lot on Lot 11 of Parcel Map 83-863 based upon calculat ons ,f obligated parking spaces. We also understand that the City will continue to review Tenant Improvement plans as they are submitted and calculate the number of parking spaces required over the I space per 500 SF approved in the site plan. The criteria to be used in such an analysis will be 1 space per each 1000 SF of wholesaling, warehouse, and distribution uses, 1 space per every 500 SF of research, testing, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, and packaging uses, and 1 space per each 300 SF of office, and general office uses. We suggest the City keep a running total on obligated parking spaces. We ask that City approve Tyro Comm System's tenant improvement permi t as soon as possible and we thank you for your cooperation, Sincerely, William Lee Miller Partner cc: Doug LaBelle 0 W. J/z d IF 13070 OLD BOLSA CHICA ROAD WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714894-3896 July 2, 1987 Mike Adams City of Huntington Beach Development Services Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject; Parking requirements for Pyro Comm Systems, 16351 Gothard, Suite D. Dear Mike, We understand that all parking per CUP 83-18 shall be onsite. We further understand that the Planning Commission and City Council have the power to approve additional park- ing adjacent to current structures When the first site plan is submitted on Lot 11 of Par- cel Map 83-863. Until such submittal and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, any parking needed over one space per 500 SF will decrease parking available for the future office building at the corner of Heil and Gothard. If there is less parking available for the office building, its size may need to be smaller than indica- ted on the approved site plan. Sincerely yours, William Lee Miller, Partner cc:, Doug LaBelle WLM:dmm CikV OF HUMTONGTO N 6,r-ACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ro Les Evans City Engineer S"I Ject Drainage Impacts of Proposed Development at N,'W corner of Gothard/Heil From Date Carol Inge Development Services August 30, 1983 After reviewing the drainage calculations submitted by Lee Miller for the proposed industrial development on the north- west corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue, do you feel that development. of the project will _ncrease the risk of flooding to the residents in the neighborhood to the west of the project? If so, would this increased flood risk be due to the channel exceeding its capacity, to the Pump station exceeding its capacity, or both? Are there any mitigation measures that can be incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potential flooding? Do we have any documantation of a flooding problem on Magellan Lane or nearby streets? If .not, is there any explanation of why the residents on this street perceived a problem and com- plained about it to the Planning Commission at the August 16, 1983 meeting? Did I asked enough questions? CI:jh HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HIINTING70N BEACH CITY O F HU T ING T ON BEACH AUG INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Tim Palin Director of Development Services Subject Drainage Impacts of N/W Corner Gothard/Heil (File #83-83) From Les Evans P.O. Box 190 City Engineer Date August 26, 1983 In response to your memo of 8/23/83 we have the following answers to your questions: 1. The City's Master Plan of Drainage Study indicated that no improvements are necessary in the neighborhood west of the subject project site. Therefore, the storm drains are con - sidered to be built to the City's design standards. 2. According to the L.D. King Master Drainage Study, it indi - cates that the 25 year discharge in the channel is 1078 c..f.s adjacent to the project site. The Study does not identify any problems or suggest any improvements to handle their calculated runoff. We have given the developer's engineer the design data and he is analyzing the effect of the run- off from his project site on the channel. 3. The design capacity of the Heil pump station is 102 c.f.s. and it serves 98 acres west of the channel which is both north and south of Heil Avenue. The subject project is tabled to drain directly into the channel and does not drain to the pump station. Therefore, the runoff from the project will not overload the pump station. WAP:jy Les Evans Drainage Impacts of N/W Corner Gothard/Heil City Engineer Development Services Subject From Date Carol Inge August 30, 1983 Attached is a copy of drainage calculations submitted by the applicant of the proposed mixed-use industrial development at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. Does Public Works concur with the applicant's conclusion that the proposed project will have no adverse effects on drainage flow in the channel adjacent to the project? Also, is there an explanation of why the residents of Magellan Lane complained to the Planning Commission of a flooding problem on their Street? jh;CI C11k V OF HUN T ING T ON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Subject Jim Barnes Acting Planner Senior CUP 83-18, TPM.83-563, CE 83-26 AND ND 83-21 INDUSTRIAL PARK - N.E. CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND HEIL AVENUE From Glen K. Godfrey Deputy Director W Date August 22, 1983 Please be sure we get a report from Public Works and the applicant's engineer relative to hydrology and grading questions asked; specifically, how the pump station will be affected by the new development. Provide a condition in the CUP which will include the "build to suit" area as requiring a 45 ft. setback and landscape buffer to be triggered when the area develops. All future development will be approved by the Planning Commission. Provide a condition relative to noise impacts - maybe report by acoustical engineer, orientation of buildings, no openings nor traffic allowed along rear adjacent to 45 ft. buffer, sound walls or berm. Specify minimum size trees, etc. GKG: j s /1 5 rl i'C CITY OF HU TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To : Carol Inge Assistant Planner From.: Bill Patapoff Civil Engineer Associate Subject: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Date : August 4, 1983 S/W CORNER MAIN AND FLOP.TDA, AND N/W CORNER GOrPHARD AND HEIL Main and Florida Project 1. No parking will be allowed on: 1. Main Street; 2. the first 275' of Florida Street, S/o Main Street. 2. 30' radius type driveway required on Florida Street. 3. Inorovements within public right-of-way shall be in accordance with Public Works Department Standards and requirements. Gothard and Heil Project 1. Pavement evaluation of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue shall be conducted to de- termine if reconstruction or capping of existing streets are necessary. 2. Commercial Industrial type radius driveways shall be constructed. 3. Interior commercial access ways shall be 27' wide per code. 4. Abandon all existing wells per City Standards. 5. A separate on-site utility plan shall be suhmitted on 24" x 36" City linen. 6. Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer, and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development. 7. Show where entire site is draining on tentative Parcel Map. 8. Erosion control plan shall be submitted for proposed and future development. 9.Show street sections on tentative Parcel Map. 10.Is this an 11 parcel tentative Parcel Map?If so, parcel lines should be solid. 11.How many acres in parcel? F IAP : ik cc: Les Evans Ed Elevatorski Bruce Gilmer Jack Miller Daryl Smith ko -it c Gt F -fl , Uyy-\ ob'va oevct f r r2v .4 77 - 1"l;-(-n 91 I Jj Illll 1L :__! La iwtq; I_Illill II II T m 11Trrnrnrmmi I!''I1" L L LUW]1J s+.H (le,y W{. 111 .......I I- ---.. rrrrrmrmmmlrrmmlrnu_- - - I,-.UlWlllll I I I I I I I I I111Il I I1 W1ll1llI ) X11; i'•:1111x1'1y •.'P"", JUN 17 1983 Hui P. 0. Sox 190 "nn Beach, CA 926413 EAST ELEVATION Scheme A EAST ELEVATION Scheme B AV ST_LAN Cori flllflul 7 W Bid J Bid J SOUTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES otD ACH p 'Fl`51ia JUN17 1983 P. 0. BoX 190 Hunt:nuton Beech, CA 9264$ STOREFRONTA OUSS PATNTED CONCRETE MUTED / SANOSIASTEO CONCRETE OSLO 25 5a 'e ID-19 Bldg J Bid J HASTiNG-3 LUNDSTROM oa ARCHITECTS FEOTEOICANOOLASTED CONCRETE P.I.E. CONCRETC 9TOREFAONT 5 GLASS EAST ELEVATION „.WEOT A CON flfiuTTu - - - I p I NI\,®R) u CII-Q?) [PAW LA©[ffl ?tD NORTH ELEVATION Bid B/F INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL WEST ELEVATION Bld I NORTH ELEVATION Bld DIG WEST ELEVATION NI.AVAV , TI> AInd©UI[ nif . CC[jM1iiLfiTIriitUU'(D) [ I "P31: A SOUTH ELEVATION Bld I STOREFRONT C OLASs PAINTED CONCRETE RNEO,SANORLAOT[O CONCRETE, Bld DIG INDUSTRIAL i Attachment "A" Office - General office uses Retail -'Business office sup lp ies, stationery , office furnitur , drafting supplies and blueprinting, xerox copy /print shoos , en ineerin and survey _su.nn , photo studios /graphic arts , travel agency, industrial commercial /residensiaf real es a e sales'. medical equipment sales and leasing ,paint store ecora in s ops 'home furnishings and,hardware stores , a lia ce tores'(lJghtin fixtures stores s a and or hot tub "equipment rentals , industrial equipment and machinery leasing and sales , marine supplies and hardware, auto and/or truck leasin sandwich shops and /or delicatessen. Attachment "A Pro osed Mixed Uses Office - General office uses. Retail - Business/office supplies, stationery, office furniture, drafting supplies and blueprinting, Xerox copy/print shops, engineering and surveying supplies, photo studios/graphic arts, travel agency, industrial/commercial/residential real estate sales, medical eouipment sales and leasing,paint stores and decorating shops, home furnishings and,hardware stores, appliance stores, lighting fixtures stores, spa and/or hot tub sales, equipment rentals, industrial equipment and machinery leasing and sales, marine supplies and hardware, auto and/or truck leasing, and sandwich shops and/or delicatessen. 'PROVED 9/1/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 1987 -7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P A ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CON ENT CALENDAR B-1 None ORAL COMMUNI TION AND COMMISSI N ITEMS STATUS OF PERIMETER BLOCK WALLS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-18 M. WESTLAND COMPANY Staff reported to the Commission that a hydrology study was being performed to determine if the addition of the wall would meet the intent of equal distribution of water and that a report would be presented at the August 18, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The following residents addressed their concerns regarding the construction of the wall: Dean Zitco, 16332 Magellan Lane; Reverand Robert Hardin, 16242 Magellan Lane; Frank Pfeifer, 16322 Magellan Lane; Cal Faello, 16351 Magellan Lane; and Fotis Georgatsos, 16262 Magellan Lane. C. P LIC HEARING ITEM C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 7-2C AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT 87-2 Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C is a request to amend the General Plan by redesignating the 65 acre Meadowlark Airport site from Low Density Residential to Planned Community containing 50 acres of mixed residential totalling 1,975 units and 15 acres of retail commercial . The site is located approximately 600 feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Land Use Element No. 87 -2C was originally processed as Area 2.1 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2, Areas 2 .1 and 2.2 were split up for separate processing; however, after the applicant for Area 2,1 requested continuation of that item . Area 2.1 is now being processed by itself as Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C. STAFF REC MMENDATION: Continue action on Land tse Element Amendment No. 87-2C and Environmental Impact Report No. 87 -2 and direct staff to prepare a specific plan zone change ordinance with conditions . The specific plan would then be processed concurrently with the land use element amendment and environmenta l imapct report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Harlow , representing the applicant , spoke in support of the request. He stated that his client will not be requesting a, density bonus and is presently doing a market study of commercial uses for the corner of the site . He said that the proposed development plans will include mixed development , single family homes, apartments, condominiums , etc. His client is concerned with traffic problems and the phasing plan for development of his project . He intends to file a conditional use permit after the specific plan which will address the distribution of housing is completed . He further stated that his client wants to avoid "piece -meal" development , is well aware of the potential impacts from development and desires to be a good neighbor . Estimated time frame for development will be 2 years for the commercial and 5 to 10 years for the overall development. Craig H. Mandeville, 4751 Hermanson Circle, spoke in favor of closing Meadowlark Airport . He objects to airplanes and the noise problems that they create. He feels that the airport will present a dangerous situation if the surrounding property is developed any further . He stated that the location of his home in relation to the airport presently prevents him from sleeping or talking during flight times and he feels the airport i s an eyesore and a poor image for the City. He feels the airport should be closed immediately. TO: Planning Commission FROM: CONCERNED AND ANGRY RESIDENTS OF TRACT 6181 DATE: July 28, 1987 SUBJECT: Status of Perimeter Block Walls - Conditional Use Permit 1183-18 M. Westland Company I In an attempt to cover this very detailed and complicated situation with the contractor M. Westland and the residents of Tract 6181. We have put together this report which we are requesting be made a permanent part of the files of the Planning Commission, the City Council, Development Services, Building Department, the City attorney and the Huntington Beach mayor. The reasons for this are many. However, most of our concerns are because of the unscrupulous methods and tactics of Mr. Lee Miller of the M. Westland Co. We have been cooperating with Mr. Miller for a long time. He has come to us for help on many occasions - even prior to this current light industrial con- struction project. Many of the neighbors trusted him and his Dad unquestionably. We really became involved in 1983 when he tried to get approvals from the Plan- ning Commission and the City Council, without seeking our advice and apinitns. We became involved when we were notified by the City that he proposed to build his building approximately 29 feet in height within 5 feet of the fence behind our homes next to the flood control channel. After many meetings and discussions we, the residents invited Mr. Miller to sit down with us and iron out an agree- ment that would meet his business needs and would be satisfactory to the residents .of Tract 6181. We reached this agreements He prepared it and we all signed it. A copy is attached to this report which you have all received tonight. The im- portant items to note in our agreement that was signed by Mr. Miller is that he agreed to set back his first building 75 feet from our back wall with a building height not to exceed 18 feet within 110 feet from our back wall. It also goes on to say "the residents agree to no block wall on the proposed i,,rojects perimeter since most of the residents couldn't see the wall, no restriction on the location of doors and windows, no restrictions on the area between building and, landscape buffer, no requirements for noise studies, no construction delays due to flood channel improvements beyond 3-31-34 and to discontinue any and all objections to the proposed project if the attached conditions are approved by the City Council as attached." As you can see we, the residents were very lenient with Mr. Miller in agree- ing to his request. We trusted him.. Then reality set in. City Council approved his project based on our agreement. The, Mayor Jack Kelley, praised the residents and Mr. Miller for working out the problems among ourselves. This agreement was signed November 1, 1983. Then Mr. Miller started his sneaky tactics in July 1985. He went to the City to try to change our agreement without our consent. Fortunately Mr. Howard Zelefsky and Sergio Martinez recognized what he was doing and called us for a clarification . We met with Mr. Miller and he proposed another agreement dated July 19, 1985 , a copy is attached to your report . He proposed that since the residents could not see the building near Gothard that he should not have to put up the 4 foot landscape buffer that he originally agreed to install. This buffer was to be installed when construction started . Just for your information, the buffer stall is not in. Please note that we rejected his new proposal and signed the rejection in front of Messrs. Zelefsky and Martinez and gave them copies for their files . We direct you to the 4th paragraph of Miller . July 19, 1985 proposal where he states: "Our intent was and remains that the landscape buffer be built along with the first building immediately adjacent to Tract 6181. The design of the landscape buffer should be submitted along with the design . of the first building adjacent to Tract 6181 . We under- stand that there are both grading and irrigation problems to do otherwise . The residents wish to have the industrial site act as a partial overflow for flood drainage as long as possible . Current construction of the landscape buffer would likely act as a dam to that overflow . Raising the planter area grade to provide for future drainage toward the street within the industrial park, plus curbs or planter walls would act as substantial barriers to overflow. We understand that the future grade of the.industrial site adjacent to Tract 6181 will have to be raised soemwhat to accomodate buildings which meet the City's drainage crit eria . The planter area willhave to be slightly higher ygt . You can see that early construction of the-landscape buffer is not an advantage . The requirement for de- sign and construction of-the landscape buffer contrary to the in- tent of our conditions of approval will likely upset the attain- ment of one of the residential community 's goal." Please note in the eleventh sentence he states the planter area will have to be slightly higher yet , he continues to say that early construction of the landscape buffer is not an advantage . As I said we rejected this pro- posal and heard nothing from Miller except the construction of his project, without the i nstallation of the landscape buffer that he promised. Next we heard from the'Planning Commission at their meeting of Septbember 3, 1986 where Mr. Miller requested approval of a curb raising approximately 8 inches above the top of the flood control channel on his side to prevent the water overflow spilling over to his project and actually pushing it against our walls which are not waterproof . This request by Mr. Miller was very interesting in that it was totally contrary to his statement I read above from his July 19, 1985 proposal where he stated raising the landscape buffer was a disadvantage to the resident .s The Planning Commission at its September 3, 1986 meeting turned down Millers request for the small curb, based on equal . distribution of water on both sides, especially in view of the fact that our backyards are actually 0z feet lower than the top of the flood control channel. Again we heard nothing from Miller after the September 3, 1986 Planning Commission rejection except the con - tinued construction of his project - and again without the installation of the promised landscape buffer. We did however , hear from Miller via his back hoes and construction crew on Thursday morning at 6:30 A.M. on July 9, 1987. They started digging the footer trench and installing the metal rebar . We immediately went to the building department to see what was happening . We found out that Mr. Mike Strange of the Development Services Department , not the Building Department, issued the permit at approximately 2:30 P.M . on Thursday , July 9, 1987. Funny the construction started at 6:30 A.M. We asked Mr . Strange on what basis he issued the permit . He informed us that he reviewed the 1983 file and nothing was in it that prohibited the wall. He said Mr. Palen and 'lr. Evans told him to issue the permit and he followed their orders . When adked about the September 3, 1986 Planning Commission rejection on a small curb, he said he knew nothing bout it but would review the file. Later he phoned and advised us that he did review the rejection and still found nothing to say that he couldn't give a permit to build an 8" block wall 5 feet in height on a foundation with rebar and the first row of blocks layed doT.'n into the wet foundation to form a secure and waterproof wall. Now, this seemed very strange to us that a 5 foot waterproof dam could be installed when an 8 inch curb was rejected by the Planning Commission. We objected , phoned City Attorney Gail Hutton and Doug Labelle . We had a phone meeting which included Mrs. Hutton , and Messrs . Labelle, Evans and Strange. They determied a "stop order " should be given to tit . Miller . It was delivered in person by Mike Strange at approximately 4:00 P.M. on Friday , July 10th, 1987. At that time the contractor had the footer poured and the first row of blocks layed an approximately 60% of the entire wall. The next morning Saturday, July 11, 1987 at 6:00 A.M. the contractor came to the site, stood around for an hour, then started to work on the wall end completed it, even to the point of filling the entire wall with concrete, making it a water- proof fortress. Compared to our walls, which are 4" flimsy hollow blocks that can be pushed over with one hand. What we the residents ended up with is a water proof dam on his side, which will not allow any water to spill over an his indus- trial park where people will work 8 hours per day, compared to our side, which is 2- feet below the top of the flood control channel and 71 feet below the top of his wall, where our family, children and babies live 24 hours a day. Now you tell me, what kind of integrity does Mr. Miller have.to sneak around the Building DepartmentAnd obtain a permit to build a fortress from the Development Services Department. We want the City Attorney's office in their investigation to determine if Mr. Miller buiL the wall on the city's easement or on his property. According to our measurements, the wall is built on the city easement. Also we want included in the investigation the names and dates of the inspection approvals of the walls, trench and rebar inst llation and construction. We don't believe the City Building Inspectors work on weekends to accommodate Mr. Miller. Along with this subject of inspections, we understand that Mr. Miller had his own resident building inspectors, not inspectors hired by the City. We want this investigated. It's strange that the building heights on his existing construction was to be limited to 29 feet from the ground level and Mr. Miller bent the codes by building up his foundation by 1 foot 9 inches, making the buildings approximately 2 feet highei than the City approved. We want to know who inspected this project and why it was approved. Also Mr. Miller was to install under ground, a catch basin to collect overflow water and store it until the flood control channel receded to a level that could handle the overflow on his property. There was supposed to be a "back flow damper" installed from his property into the channel. Both the catch basin and the damper was inspected and approved. We want to know who inspected and approved, because we, cannot find the damper and we did not see at any time the installation of the catch basin. Which brings up an interesting question of why, suddenly, a small curb to keep water out, then when that was turned data to keep water out of his site. We believe he did not did Mr. Miller want first down, built a 5 foot high install the catch basin or the back flow damper as required by the City. We want the elude all of,his permits and inspections to determine if they investigation to in- are legal. In summation we are requesting that any future requests for permits by Mr. Miller or the M. Westland Company, or any one that may own the property in the event of a sale by Mr. Miller be required to obtain approval from the City Planning Commission. We also want the new wall removed because it was installed illegally, it was against the agreements Mr. Miller had with us, it was done without=the°approval of the Planning Commission; he defied a "stop work order" and the most important reason the wall creates a hazard to our homes and the lives of elderly handicapped residents, our children and our babies. Thank you. Residents of Tract 6181 Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 Edward S. Garakian 16392 Magellan Lanc; Huntington Beach, ;a. Frank Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. K. Dean Zitko 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. Tract 6181 Negotiating Committee CC: Gail ;iutton, City Attorney Jack Kelley, Mayor Doug Labelle, Director of Community Development Paul Cook, Director of Public Works Les Evan, City Engineer George Bendlin, Building Department November 1, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. Dear Sir, The residents of Tra c t 6181 and M. Westland Company met on October 27, 1983 to discuss and work toward a mutually acceptable and competitive industrial project at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard. Upon careful and detailed consideration, the residents' negotiating committee and M. Westland have agreed to conditions which beneficially satisfy their needs and desires relative to the proposed development. It is believed that this agreement should end the controversy of interpreting the zoning ordinance and locating the boundary between the industrial. zone and residential zone. We have agreed to conditions which are greater than required by code and greater than required of similar nearby industrial projects . Changes in these conditions or additional conditions are likely to upset the attainment of the residential community's goals and/or greatly damage the proposed project's ability to successfully compete with existing nearby industrial developments. We jointly ask that you approve the M. Westland Company industrial project subject to the atached set of Conditional Use Permit - Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commiss- ion approved Tentative Map - Conditions of Approval. In a spirit of cooperation we have both given concessions. M. Westland. must protect the proposed project's ability to successfully compete with recently completed industrial developments and the residents of Tract 6181 want protections f r the future enjoyment of their property. The beginning negotiating positions varied greatly. The issues negotiated were as follows: A. Buildin Setback -- The residents wanted the building setback from their property lines to be 75 feet. It was M. Westland's position that a strict reading of the zoning ordinance would require no setback from the project's property line but the spirit of the ordinance might require a 15 foot setback. The 15 felt plus 30 feet of flood channel would be a total of 45 feet from the residents' property lines. A. Buildinq Height - The resident: wanted the building height at the westerly st-e of lot 11 to be 18 feet. It was M. Westland's position that other recently completed nearby industrial developments had no building height restrictions and none should be required of this project. C. Landsca e Buffer - The residents wanted a tree landscape buffer. It was M. Westland s position that other similar and nearby projects were not required to give any landscape buffers and had full use of all their property for building. The landscape buffer is an expense which damages the proposed project's ability to compete with completed developments. D. Flood Channel Ca acit - The residents wanted a delay in cons..ruction of b li dings and pazement to give the City the opportunity for the timely and e f ficient installation of flood channel improvements before the 1984- 1985 rainy season . It was M. Wertland's position that they can delay pavement and building construction until April 1, 1984 but no longer. Further the capacity problem of the flood channel was not created by the proposed project and the expenses of channel improvements should not be paid by the proposed project solely. The attached conditions represent an agreement between the residents and M . Westland . In summary , M. Westland e s to a 75 foot building setback from Tract 6181,'4 foot tree landscape uffer, 18 foot building height limit within 110 feet of Tract 61 81, and a limited delay in some construction . The residents agree to no block wall on the proposed project's perimeter since most residents couldn't see the wall, no restrictions on location of doors and windows , no restrictions on the use of the area between buildings and landscape buffer, no requirements for noise studys, no construction delays due to flood channel i mprove - ments beyond March 31, 1983, and to discontinue any and all objections to the proposed project if the attached conditions are approved by the City Council as attached. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this project. Please . follow our wishes so that controversy and objections can end. William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , CA 92683 Sincerely Yours, ward kian 16392 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA rank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lan Huntington Beach, Dean Zitko 1633 2 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA ,tlz - 14 Tract 6181 Ne, otiatin Committee CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 83-18, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1983, and the elevations dated June 17, 1983, shall be the approved site plans and elevations. 2. Commercial/office uses allowed in the project shall be governed by the list of uses contained in Resolution No. 1313 and shall be located only in those buildings and suites so indicated on the approved site plan. Any change in the list of uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 4. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Depart- ment of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required. 6. The development shall comply with all requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 7. The second story lofts on the commercial suites shall be used for storage/industrial only rather than as additional retail space. 8. A soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shalt include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill. properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 9. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. L0. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. T_ 11. The sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. 12. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollu- tants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 13. A minimum 45 foot building setback shall be provided from the westerly property line of lot 11. Buildings may have doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. 14. Within 80 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 18 feet. Between 80 feet and 110 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 31 feet. Building height in the remainder of the project shall conform to the M-l development standard for height. 15. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Toxic gases or matter shall not be emi tted which can cause any damage to health, to animals or vegetation, or other forms of property, or which can cause any excessive soiling beyond the lot lines of the use. 17. Odors from gases or other odorous matters shall not he in such quantities as to be offensive beyond the lot line of the use.. 18. ,M. Westland shall not construct any pavements or buildings until after March 31,1984 except street and drainage improvements within the city right-of-ways. Before April 1, 1984 M. Westland will be permited to grade the project and install underground utilities. on April 1, 1984 M. Westland shall be permitted to construct buildings and pavements. e /i 4 A UL P n ' DRAFT James W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 83-18,'C4ndition of Approval No. 5, July 19, 1985 Dear Mr. Palin, You might remember that the City Council adopted the said condition after we sent them a joint letter dated Nov. 1, 1983 explaining our desires. We explained that after detailed and careful negotiating we agreed to the condition so that both the residents' and the industrial park owner's goals could be achieved. We tried to make it clear that both sides had given concessions to achieve a fair agreement and that adoption of our intent was important to achieve a desired balance. We understand that there currently is a question as to the meaning and intent of condition number 5. The condition reads as follows: 'I5 A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Department of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required." There was discussion at both the Planning Commission hearing and at our negotiating sessions that the only portion of the industrial project that could be seen from the resident's first story back windows would be the back of the buildings immediately adjacent to Tract 6181. This is demonstrated by the attached sketch. The landscape buffer was proposed to scre-n those buildings adjacent to Tract 6181. Since the buildings near Gothard can't be seen at all from the res devices, th y d 't reed `tWrltscreeningYMS V \;AAJ e-Nodie6 w Ou intent was and remain l "hat ne, c.lel+,hat t e andscarAe u fer be uilt along with, thefirst building immediately adjacent to Tract 6181. The design of the landscape buffer should be submitted along with the design of the first building adjacent to Tract 6181. We understand that there are both grading and irrigation problems to do otherwise. The residents wish to have the industrial site act as a partial overflow for flood drainage as ong as possi le. Current const?ucL3 on of Lhe lanasepe offer wou3d_J ely act as a dam to that overflow. Raising the planter area grade to provide for future drainage toward the street within the industrial park, plus curbs or planter walls would act as substantial barriers to overflow. We understand that the future grade of the industrial site adjacent to Tract 6181; will have to be raised somewhat to accommodate buildings which meet the City's drainage criteria. The planter area will have to be slightly higher yet. You can see that early construction of the landscape buffer is not an advantage . The requirement for design and-construction of the landscape buffer contrary to the intent of our conditions of approval will likely upset the attainment of one of the residential community's goals. Please adopt our intended dates f or design submittal and construction of the landscape buffer. Thankyou for your consideration and we look forward to your continued cooperation. Sincerely, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster, CA 92683 Edward S. Garakian 16392 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach,. CA Frank R Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach., CA K. Dean Zitko 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Ale (Or,k \d OP C 0 C> I1 v ` ' f `r Tract (1181 Negotiating Committee 111A .1 All 7 -P N , \.&'\Cq 0 Al A I-'IV 1, (L I \ , 11 /- n C )1-ki) - o U - _ i , 0 . 4 . C. ' F - e7 "1.. 0 L 1E, COUNCIL APPROVE P 4-1- 7S f (- AMIT1 /4 rrTIEHOI + SHAVEFENCESATT I*SHEIGEMG T1lE A HAVE FENCESATTiELOINERHBGff USED INf7FJSMNG ANW-& .j 'j o . F :i c g_ w sa P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (7141 530.5241 PI.ANNINc DIVISION (714) 536.5271 July 18, 1985 William L. Miller H. Westland Co. 13070 Old holsa Rd. %IOStmi.nsLer, Cry 92683 'ABJECT: NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOTLIARD & HEIL PROJECT; Landscaping Installation . (Plan Check No. 13130 EXLensiQrO Dear Mr. Miller: Per, your, request, the stLafi' reviewed your petition fox the delay on I:he installation of landscaping and irri- •gaLion along the western property line abbuLing the er- isLing single family home. The staff determination requires that you obtain approval of landscaping and lrr.iga(ion drawings 'prior 'lo framing inspection for phase one, but including the sL-ip of land-- sc,zpiny and irrigation along the western ',prop rLy line. Hovcrl;heless, the staff will consider -Elie- approval of a two-year installation delay if all neighboring residents agree in writing to such delay. In addition, a bond shall be posted to guarranty such future installation. In refe r ence to Plan Check No. 13130, an extension of time on the Plan Check has been granted until' August 6, 1985. S_r.#:c; io P1ar I nI 4 , ;yeti r"or Plan 7 iecl: SM: ads CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714) 536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 September 4, 1986 M. Westland Co. 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Road Westminster, California 92683 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION 9 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-563 Gentlemen: The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach upheld the Engineering Department's interpretation of Condition No. 9 of Tentative Parcel Map 83-563 at their meeting held September 3, 1986. Their interpretation is that the grading shall be level with no portion of the grade projecting above channel top. They based their interpretation on the following findings: a. Adjacent Rl property is presently 2-1/2 feet below the existing grade of the Industrial Park. b. Adding 1-1/2 feet of grading to the property will not meet the intent of equal distribution of overflow to the east and west sides should the channel overtop its banks. c. The block wall on the residents property tL he west shall not be considered as a retaining wall for overflow purposes. This clarification can be appealed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Sincerely, James W. Palin, Secretary Planning commission by: Flor ence Webb Senior Planner JWP:FW:k1a (6139d-12) THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-10, C-15, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THE REMAINiNG PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986: C-7, C-9, C-11, C-12, C-13, C--14. C: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 86-4 Special Sign Permit 86-4 is a request for a second channel letter wall sign for business identification purposes for Century 21 Beacnside, Realtors. Century 21 is located in Charter Centre, ii; the single story retail building between the office tower and Edwards Cinemas. The proposed sign is approximately 86 square feet in area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 2 Section A from t e provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Nelson, Ray Johnson Electric, spoke in support of the proposed sign. He stated that the property owner also supported the sign. Kelly King spoke in support of the proposed sign. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed sign and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86- WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mone MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a .substantial hardship to the applicant. 2. A. 48 square foot sign will not adversely affect other wall signs located on the building frontage which faces the interior parking area in Charter Centre. PC Minutes - 8/19/8.6 -4- (6022d) B-2 MODIFICATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON HORSE STABLES WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A MOTION WAS MA' FY WINCHELL , SECOND BY LIVENGOOD , TO MODIFY CONDITION OF A=ROTAL ON HORSE STABLES WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY RESIDENTIAL DE.!:LOPMENT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-4 .5 AND ANY OTHERS ) T O READ: "APPROVAL SHALL BE FOR A THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD," BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT; Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-3 M. WESTLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HEIL D RD - ANDS PE B FFER N L T F PAR E MAP 3- AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - A letter was received from the M. Westland Company by the Planning Commission with several questions regarding the landscape buffer and drainage on Lot 11 of Parcel Map 83-563 and Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. A MOTION WAS MADE L.Y LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKI,JE, TO SET THIS ITEM AS A PUBLIC BEARING ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 CALENDAR OF THE PLANNING CC"1MISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe , Winchell, Livengood, Erskine , Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Staff is to set up a meeting with the applicant and representatives from the Planning commission (Commissioner Winchell and Commissioner Mirjahangir ) to discuss the request of the applicant. Resident Resident Resident 7202 Sunlight Drive P. 0. Box 518 16611 Gemini Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Ternecu CA 92390 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 A. P.rp 142-37509 3. P.142-441-05 A. P. 4 142-492-06 Sidney C \ Lee Barley Properties Cal-West Real Estate Fund 7192 Sun 'ght Drive 16541 Delton Circle, #4 4401 Atlantic Avenue #400 Hunt ingto Beach, CA 42 Hunting n Beach, CA 92647 Long Beach, CA 90807 A. P. # 142-3 5-10 A. P 4 142-441-16 A. P. 4 142-511-14 & -15 Leon L. Heimkes Er a Ginkel HB Distribution Associates 7191 Hail Avenue 1 541 Delton Circle,4L 1301 Dove Street #760 Huntington Beac 92647 untington Beach, CA 92647 ,N wport Beach, CA 92660 A. P. 4 142-37 -17 A. P. 4 1A2-441-16 A. P. m 142-511-13 Found Abiad David A. Eisenman Gal-West Real Estate Fund 7201 Heil Ave ue 2869 Boa Vista Drive august Financial Inc. Huntington Be ch, CA 92647 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 4401 Atlantic Ave #400 Long Beach, CA 90807 A, P. ; 142-37 -18 A. ..;p 142-441-17 A. P. 4 142-375-19 James H . Hodges 7211 Heil Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 9 A. P.. r 142-441-18 Peter R. Dorsa 18484 Santa Isador Street Fountain Vally,C 92708 \ A. P. 4 142-441- 0 Gothard Busines Center 12831 Newport A enue Tustin, CA 926 0 A. P. # 142-4 1-02 Forres L. Ricker 16532 De ton Circle Huntingto Beach, CA 92647 William P. Neuenfeldt 7221 Heil Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 91647 A. P. # 142-4 -19 A. P. 4 142-375-21 Charles W. Eberha t Hargaret M. Wilhelmi 6001 E. Ocean Blvd.P. 0. Box 518 Long Beach, Ca 90803 Temecula, CA 92390 A. P. i 142-441-01 A., P. 4 142-492-01 Edwar H. Wilhelmi John Robert deserve P. 0. Bo 518 333 S. Hope Street Temecula, 92390 Los Angeles, CA 90071 A. P. 44 142-492-02 A. . 4 142-441-03 Henry Jessner Gothard Business Center les W. Melchior 4818 Coke Ave ue 12831 Newport Avenue 16632 Ba e Lakewood, CA 9 712 Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 TRANSCRIPT CUP NO, 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-15, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that.approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Patin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue to endorse the Planning commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. .....At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (166 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's, presentation ends at 199) De La Loza : Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Payne: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: inas much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. (6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas : So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 2.13) Paone responded (tape 216.) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook If that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) (6702d) MacAllister; Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. rattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions,on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like . .. Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless. we itemize it out. You are talking about on ti,e back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza t communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. De La Loza: Condition number 5 relal_-.F co the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so r. -. motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and thin would be inconsistent with that compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. Paone: could not hear (tape 272) Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot. landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerJ.y property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. -5-(6702d) Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly : Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission that did not involve the arias of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will cerEainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the..... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. -6-(6702d) De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself. Unknown: Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be .........(tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drain,::ge goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic : Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr; Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has sr;gested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclus4on was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood, control? I am. operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet ..... (321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson : Perhaps , that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? could hear from Mr . Paul Cook that this i s how they project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my other words not just saying Public Works standards not really know what those are in each particular Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it ;subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. Bailey: If I would see the concerns. In because we do project. (6702d) Finley: Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential. neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development services would like to offer to the Council at this Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the CoLncil, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the PlanningCommissions action. Now the conditions of approval wereconcluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you.. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot bight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. .....At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone'spresentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you, feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a prob-em with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had grading plan for the site. (6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood co rol channel it seems to me that the folks that came in oppositi of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project wnen it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: if that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been don,; before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will., So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one, else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty cf this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal., Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly : I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ....... Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? Bailey: Yes Thomas : Well , all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out . All I want to do is support their compromise . They have both done a good job . (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas : SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood .control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly . Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate f. the ...... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza aie you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza; The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-1.8-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself. Unknown : Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that that would be ..... (tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. .,Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet ..... (321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer , drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? Bailey : If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns . In other words not just saying Public Works standards because. we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. Em e4r b+, afiirrH3 u3yt4t'.x,4__% _ Finley: Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) m -9- (6702d) TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman. Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighboriood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a lazd'scape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to ccmment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue, to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submit.ed some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot high,t limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. .....At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Patin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on -tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would. be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But, there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a. condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east. and west side. (tape 204) And that. would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway . Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area . He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that'it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) -3-(6702d) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning commission's recommendation with he modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson; Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately,30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems,to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up witK a heir ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ...... Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly : Is that your only comment at this moment? (6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are-referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to' go beyond the-CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. -5-(6702d) Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palinc I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ...... Finley.- It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incoeporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated. in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone 's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley : It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because-I don't see it myself. Unknown : Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer 'drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east- and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be ....(tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate, action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please. Wentworth : G Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now., So whatever you wanc to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only lave the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design. was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet.....(321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson : Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. -8-(6702d) Finley: Second Kelly Seeing no other lights, I would ask,for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) TRANSCRIPT CUP N0. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-1.8, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the city Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of-the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue to endorse the Planning commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 `hot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would mellow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr . Paone , they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you . There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height . After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission . Mr. Paone indicated tome ,. yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission 's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot bight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission . ..... At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires . And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 2.04) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Baileys question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) (6702d) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come t1 a t time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assuranc' from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer. and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like . tovote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider , because it looks like Bailey : Yes, I would go along with Pattinson 's motion. Kelly : Is that your only comment at this moment? -4-(67.32d,) Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we might to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague knless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OR, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to canntnt on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the. conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it'speaks to the 181 height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley : I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really J,ul-9 refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information , please , Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself . Unknown: Number 11 Kelly : Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine . Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would, be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be .........(tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please.. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly : Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet ..... (321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. Finley: Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) CITY O F HU TI G 'TON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To DENNIS KREJCI Deputy Building Official Subject WESTLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK From Date JERRY LOCHMANN Landscape Architect NOVEMBER 21, 1986 Per your discussion with Daryl Smith on this date, the following are the deficient landscape improvements along with the estimated cost for the above referenced project: 48 -15 gallon Eucalyptus sideroxylon @ 25' on center 315 -5 gallon Prunnus caroliniana @ 4' on center Ground cover from rooted cuttings @ 12" on center Automatic irrigation system Estimated Contracted Cost $12,000.00. The above landscape improvements are to satisfy the code landscape intent as well as the conditions of approval for the 5 foot wide area along the West property line of the above referenced project. It is my understanding that you will be adding 150% to the above estimate for bonding purposes in order to allow the project to proceed as shown on the conditionally approved plans. JL:ss cc: Daryl D. Smith Tak Yamada Susan Pierce CITY O F H UN T ING TO N BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DENN I S KREJCI From Deputy Building Official JERRY LOCHMANN Landscape Architect Subject WESTLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK Date NOVEMBER 21, 1986 Per your discussion with Daryl Smith on this date, the following are the deficient landscape improvements along with the estimated cost for the above referenced project: 48 -15 gallon Eucalyptus sideroxylon @ 251 on center 315 -5 gallon Prunnus caroliniana @ 4' on center Ground cover from rooted cuttings @ 1211 on center Automatic irrigation system Estimated Contracted Cost $12,000.00. The above landscape improvements are to satisfy the code landscape intent as well as the conditions of approval for the 5 foot wide area along the west property line of the above referenced project. It is my understanding that you will be adding 150% to the above estimate for bonding purposes in order to allow the project to proceed as shown on the conditionally approved plans. JL:ss cc: Daryl D. Smith Tak Yamada Susan Pierce 71- MICHAEL J_ GENOVESE TIM PAONE SUSAN W HALDEMAN VIRGINIA GUTE. RALPH R. MAZUREK ' MEMBERS OFA PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION November 18, 1983 Paone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Jim Palin Director of Development Services 2000 .Main Street Huntington Beac h, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 Dear Jim: HAND DELIVERED Enclosed with this letter are copies of (i) a letter which will be delivered today to each member of the City Council and (ii) an agreement reached between the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, which borders this project, and the applicant on this project, M. Westland. Company. As you are aware, my office represents M. Westland Company. If, after reviewing the enclosed documents, you have any questions or comments regarding the agreement reached between the applicant and the residents, please give me a call so we may discuss any concerns prior to the City Council meeting on Monday night. I appreciate your courtesy and assistance in reaching a workable solution to the issues involved in this matter. Best regards, cc: HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOV18 1683 P.O. Box 190 } P- t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OF MicHAEL J. GENOVESE' TIM PAONE SUSAN W. HALDEMAN VIRGINIA GUTE+ RALPH R. MAZUREK •MCM9[R5 OF APROFCSSIONAL CORPORATION Paone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 18, 1983 Don McAllister HAND DELIVERED 1121 Park Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 Dear Don; Attached to this letter is a copy of an agreement entered into between M. Westland Company, the applicant on this project, and the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, representing the residents of the community bordering the project (the "Agreement"). As stated in the Agreement, the applicant and the residents spent a substantial amount of time in compromising their respective positions. M. Westland Company desires to honors its commitment represented by the Agreement and urges you to approve the project subject to the conditions attached to the Agreement. However, recognizing that this Agreement does not bind the city council and in light of the recommendation of the Development Services Department that the project be approved in a manner consistent with the planning commission's prior approval, the applicant requests that the council take the following concerns into consideration if the council elects to approve the project with conditions different from those either (a) agreed to by the applicant and the residents or (b) approved by the planning commission: 1. A landscape buffer has not been required in similar projects. The applicant has agreed to a six-foot buffer with a six-foot building setback or a four-foot buffer with a forty-five foot building setback. Any greater landscaping requirement would adversely affect the design and circulation of the project and would make it very difficult for this project to compete with other projects in the area 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD • P. O. BOX 7760 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92658-0760 • (7141640-1680 November 18, 1983 Page 2 which were not subject to similar restrictions. Suggestions that a fifteen-foot fully landscaped setback might provide a compromise are misplaced. Such a condition is totally unprecedented in prior city approvals and would work a significant hardship upon the applicant. 2. The placement of truck doors on the side of the project is only feasible with the iAnimal setback proposed by the planning commission. The residents have agreed to the placement of the truck doors at the rear of the buildings with a seventy-five foot setback from their property lines. 3. If, after the conclusion of the public hearing, the council desires to approve the project on conditions different from those either agreed to by the residents or approved by the planning commission, the applicant would request an opportunity to comment upon any new conditions which the council might consider. The applicant has made substantial concessions in reaching the proposed compromise. Any further restrictions on this project would be grossly inequitable. If you have any questions regarding this project, you may contact me at 640-1.680 prior to the meeting. Additionally, I will be present at the meeting to answer any questions which might arise. Sincerely, Tim Paone /kg enclosure cc: Planning Department City Attorney Lee Miller November 1, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. Dear Sir, The residents of Tract 6181 and M. Westland Company met on October 27, 1983 to discuss and work toward a mutually acceptable and competitive industrial project at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard. Upon careful and detailed consideration, the residents', negotiating committee and M. Westland have agreed to conditions which beneficially satisfy their needs and desires relative to the proposed development. It is believed that this agreement should end the controversy of interpreting the zoning ordinance and locating the boundary between the industrial zone and residential zone. We have agreed to conditions which are. greater than required by code and greater than required of similar nearby industrir projects. Changes in these conditions or additional conditions. are 1ikel- to upset the attainment of the residential community's goals and/or greatly damage the proposed project's ability to successfully compete wi, existing nearby industrial developments. We jointly ask that you approve the M. Westland Company industrial project subject to the atached set of Conditional Use Permit - Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commiss- ion approved Tentative Map - Conditions of Approval. In a spirit of cooperation we have both given concessions. M. Westland must protect the proposed project's ability to successfully compete with recently completed industrial developments and the residents of Tract 6181 want protections for the future enjoyment of their property. The beginning negotiating positions varied greatly. The issues negotiated were as follows : A. Buildin Setback - The residents wanted the building setback from their property lines to be 75 feet. It was N. Westland's position that a strict reading of the zoning ordinance would require no setback from the project's property line but the spirit of the ordinance might require a 15 foot setback. The 15 feet plus 30 feet of flood channel would be a total of 45 feet from the residents' property lines. B. Buildin Hei ht The residents wanted the building height at the westerly side of lot 11 to be 18 feet. It was M. Westland's position that other recently completed nearby industrial developments had no building height restrictions and none should be required of this project. C. Landscape Buffer - The residents wanted a tree landscape buffer. It was M. Westland's position that other similar and nearby projects were not required to give any landscape buffers and had full use of all their property for buailding. The landscape buffer is an expense which damages the proposed project's ability to compete with completed developments. D. Flood Channel Ca acit - The residents wanted a delay in construction of buildings and pavement to give the City the opportunity for the timely and efficient installation of flood channel improvements before the 1984- 1985 rainy season. It was M. Westland's position that they can delay pavement and building construction until April 1, 1984 but no longer. -2- Further the capacity problem of the flood channel was not created by the proposed project and the expenses of channel improvements should not be paid by the proposed project solely. The attached conditions represent an agreement between the residents and M. Westland . In summary , M. Westland agrees to a 75 foot building setback from Tract 6181 ,-4 foot tree landscape buffer, 18 foot building height limit within 110 feet of Tract 6181, and a limited delay in some construction . The residents agree to no block wall on the proposed project's perimeter since most residents couldn 't see the wall, no restrictions on location of doors and windows, no restrictions on the use of the area between buildings and landscape buffer, no requirements for noise studys , no construction delays due to flood channel improve - ments beyond March 31, 1983 , and to discontinue any and all objections to the proposed project if the attached conditions are approved by the City Council as attached. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this project. Please follow our wishes so that controversy and objections can end. Sincerely Yours, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , CA 92683 Edward S.kian 16392 Magelran Lane Huntington Beach, CA rank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lan Huntington Beach, Dean Zitko 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Tract 6181 Ne otiatinq Committee. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 83-18, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1963, and the elevations dated June 17, 1983, shall be the approved site plans and elevations. 2. Commercial/office uses allowed in the project shall be governed by the list of uses contained in Resolution No. 1313 and shall be located only in those buildings and suites so indicated on the approved site plan. Any change in the list of uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All building spoils, such as unused 'lumber, wire,, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 4. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide, screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in 'accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Depart- ment of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required. 6. The development shall comply with all requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 7. The second story lofts on the commercial suites shall be used for storage/industrial only rather than as additional retail space. 8. A soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations , retaining walls, streets and utilities. 9. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. ' 10. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be sub.t.ct to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 0 11. The sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. 12. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollu- tants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 13. A minimum 45 foot building setback shall be provided from the westerly property line of lot 11. Buildings may have doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. 14. Within 80 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 18 feet. Between 80 feet and 110 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 31 feet. Building height in the remainder of the project shall conform .to the M-1 development standard for height. 15. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Toxic gases or matter shall not be emitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals or vegetation , or other forms of property, or which can cause any excessive soiling beyond the lot lines of the use. 17. Odors from gases or other odorous matters shall not be in such quantities as to be offensive beyond the lot line of the use. 18. M. Westland shall not construct any pavements or buildings until after March 31,1984 except street and drainage improvements within the city right-of-ways . Before April 1, 1984 M. Westland will be permited to grade the project and install underground utilities . On April 1, 1984 M. Westland shall be permitted to construct buildings and pavements. TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 1g, Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND T h ,2 basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. Thisis a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission, Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference wo.ld be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza : L aid the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not . Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion, on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition. if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural f l ow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) (6702d) MacAllister : Thank you Mr. Mayor . One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions , I am ready to su p port the Planning commission 's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support . Thank you. Pattinson : Thank you , Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and i n the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion , It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas , staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time . If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise , it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff 's proposal . So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal . Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with councilman Pattinson . We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. Otherwise, I don 't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don 't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly t he right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding , I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors., Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total ccmmint because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ...... Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly! Is that your only comment at this moment? (6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes M'andic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motior as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, „it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being between from 8G to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. Bailey: Yes Thomas; Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or he next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly . May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Pa.one could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Pali n: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessar ,, which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped stri ,L, i t speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats , it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet , it speaks to the 181 height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows , etc. in the westerly wall . All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however , you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action 'on the C UP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CT- only. Kelly: All right, I think that is understood and 1 think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I Was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr, Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ...... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the notion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley : That is fine then.. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. Howaver, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: 1 will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the...... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly : I would stand on a point of information, please , Mr. De La Lora are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the, 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself. Unknown: Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 -all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where i, says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be ......... (t298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would bu more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for yc,ifor appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr . Mandic; Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approv-U as Lated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please, Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin: (tape 305) In, your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall he submitted for proposed and future development, the proposad drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that wou.'d require equal flow over. -7-(6702d). Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting . I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson; Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhps, that would meet ..... (321,) Kelly; That is number 11 on the CUP it says t'iat sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? Bailey: If I could hear from Mr.. Paul cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subjectto a condition as C-P cribed in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care c, en'-.:re problem. Mandic: I would like to make a mo-ion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. -s-(6702d) Finley: Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) TRANSCRIPT CUP N0. 83-18 Kelly : Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83 -18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently . Item D -lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K . Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue . Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff , are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the city Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel.. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department the we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings, We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. Aftcr reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes they would b2 receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot bight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have Slot. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the s'te be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally. distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of mi head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at, this time had a grading plan for the site Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. k;-,ok, I Was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that 'e approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Faone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last -Feting and I am not sure how they can alleviate that problem. The '_e thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, ti-at is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that becone necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the hank. tie required Nola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. Be stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable ; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed . (tape 249) -3 -(6702d) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it,seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal . So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey : May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks bike Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? that (6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on the back page or the next to last page, actually it s 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all. the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats; it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can, amend the tentative map for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that. are listed that resulted from the compromise negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ... Finley It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion.... Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself. Unknown: Number 11 Kelly: Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley: No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be ......... (tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes please. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please , Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palm: (tape 305 ) in your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map , condition no . 9 of the hydrology , hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map . As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that w ould require equal flow over. W ,,.ssA.:r ken Zk,,wafi;:,irk w ,k'•:m N., .. ..: •i,ae vl z.. ;;,4 U 1 ve i ,F,ke,:ry .y t4 B, c,Y' »:'t3 Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see . Are we goinq to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet ...(321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer , drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approval of the TPM? 'Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK, -8 - (6702d) Finley : Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights , I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth : All Ayes (tape 329) (6702d). December 2, 1986 Charles W . Thompson City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 HAND DELIVERED Re: 6Use Permit No. 83-18 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Dear Mr. Thompson:03 This firm represents the M. Westland Company ("Westla-Ad , te i applicant for a mixed use project located on the nor iest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue (the "Project"). On November 21, 1983, the City Council approved Cond-.final The Permit No. 83-18 (the "C.U.P.") and Tentative Parcel<Mag•No. 83-563 (the "Parcel Map") for the Project.rn;;' Recently, significant controversy has arisen with respee zt. tohe interpretation of Condition of Approval No. 9 to the Parcel Map. The portion of Condition No. 9 which is in question reads as follows: "The site shall be graded to ensure that, should the channel overtop its banks, the overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west sides." The Project is located next to a storm drain channel. On the opposite side of that channel is a residential development. The residential development has a continuous block wall separating that development from the channel. The block wall extends from 3' feet to 531 feet above the top of the channel. That wall clearly acts as a barrier to overflow from the channel. The problem that has arisen is that the Public Works Department has taken the position that Condition No. 9 requires the Project to be graded no higher than the top of the channel . However, in 'A PARTNERSHIP flC:UUING PRC I ESSIQNA, LOSPQRAilNS 147$ JANN,BCREE RGAC • P C BOY 7760 • NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 926 Paor, Genovese, Callahan, MicHolm &Winton LAWYERS' m 0 Charles W. Thompson December 2, 1986 Page 2 discussions with members of the Public Works staff, Public Works acknowledges that their interpretation will cause all of the overflow to be diverted to Westland's property. Clearly, "equal distribution" does not require Westland's project to take all of the overflow. It requires Westland to take fifty percent of the overflow, plus any additional amount that Westland volunteers to take. Westland has submitted plans to the city which will result in the Project absorbing as much as eighty perce:it of the overflow . Amazingly, Public-Works has rejected this proposal as not being consistent with Condition No. 9 and, instead, is requiring the Project to take all of the overflow. All explanations provided by Public Works for its interpretation indicate a very subjective analysis by Public Works of the intent of the City Council. This analysis produces a result which is totally contrary to the written terms of Condition No. 9. It is an understatement to say that Public Works' position is wrong. At the heart of Public Works' misconception is a refusal to take the existence of the residents' wall into consideration when calculating overflow. The obvious problem is that using this analysis, the residents can never be required to take their fifty percent of the overflow as is also required by Condition No. 9. The only reasonable interpretation of Condition No. 9 is that the grading, when considered in light of all other existing and proposed factors, such as the residents' wall and Westland's proposed drainage plans and structures, will not cause unequal distribution of overflow. Public Works' position seems to be based upon the improper theory that grading and grading alone determines overflow . Clearly, this is not correct. Most important, however, is the fact that Public Works is adamantl o osed, to the overflow bein distributed e uall Public Works is requiring that Westland take all of the overflow. Public Works' interpretation makes it impossible to distribute the flow equally and therefore makes compliance with the condition impossible. This interpretation renders the condition meaningless. Therefore, either Public Works' interpretation is wrong or the condition is unenforceable. Charles W. Thompson December 2, 1986 Page 3 This issue has been bouncing around City Hall for approximately five months. Westland has been extremely patient in attempting to resolve the dispute. Although certain departments (specifically, Development Services) have been very cooperative in attempting to resolve this matter, the insistence of Public Works on adhering to an untenable interpretation of Condition No. 9 has produced a stalemate and is causing considerable delays in the construction of the Project. To date, Westland has made every effort to modify its plans to provide assurances that channel overflow will be properly managed. However, it is not Westland's obligation to ensure that no overflow will reach the residents' properties or to guaranty the efficiency of the city's flood control system. Westland cannot afford any further patience. if this matter is not resolved by December 16, 1986, Westland may be forced to take legal action against the city. Sincerely, Tim Paone /tic cc: Lee Miller - bcc: Robert Sangster" TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 N vI Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date Y`egding D-la appeal filed by .:ouncilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-1, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that at) ear was that there was not enoua' information an consi eration iven regarding t e orainaee roblem a I va_ o e evelo ment mi t add to the existing drainage pro em within the surrounding neigh or oo . I e ieve Chat e wo earings will be held concurrently, Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dealt Zitzo to the same .items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. -Patin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council , as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report , we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel . I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel . We have received a copy of the lette from the developer 's legal council , Mr. Tim Paone . I am unde the understanding that it was hand delivered to each o of you council members . Within that letter they propose a comp mise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewin the compromise position it is the consensus of the depart-me that we continu- to endorse the Planning Commissions actions a conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offer would propose to have the industrial structures /buildings settin ack 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 Toot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn woul allow normal i ndustrial activities to take place in the 4 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in at westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that min one community this design and treatment has let to 'many co plaints where they abut upon residential low density de elopments . With that , Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs tha we would like to review you. In your packet , the developer s submitted some sections through the development which re ected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the c ditions of approval were concluded in your packet of inform ion . Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildi gs at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 eet in height. This is a reduction from the height ermitted in/the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discusse he, additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There as a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 fee in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. one and discussed with him if the developer was willing to con ruct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property ine would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setb k as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated o me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recom ndation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action d insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of th 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommend by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Pal'. went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is re mmending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary a far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, 1 will open the oubli hearing. Paone: (tape s'arts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals pre ented to the council and stated their preference would be for staf s proposal. (tape on Paene's presentation ends at 199) De La b a: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setb' s as proposed in the 3 alternatives which wculd include the st m drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my con q "' - you see the report that we received from Paul cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this oint to alleviate the drain-a e nrob mel mel s in the area? But there was also a sug estion on t is and I wou like to know w et,er or not you ee t,at you could inc ude this as a condition if t e ounce desires. And that is we cou a condition that the site be raoeo to insure that sho' d the c annel ver too its banks overflow w - eoua v cis r -o a t a wes t tape no. that wou a ne w,at staff ',ou consider ao if r that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I ao back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a, grading plan for the site. -2-(6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading lans that we o rove must e graded to the satis . n of the engineering de artment and we w d reauire that they grade it so such a roblem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: n re ards to leveling or eaualizin the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in 0000 s o ect broua t a oiaaram that s owea tnaL project when it is brought uo to arade level is goin to be about 2 r 3 feet higher on the east side over ana above the WP Tnat is one c that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how the can alleviate that oro em. _ne whole thing has to be gra e to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is oing to be a big pro em to overcome and I am not sure that tney can do it anvwav come un with a natura flow that as o ne tnat hia . Or requl them to raise the of er sice or mne ank? That w s _roposa as aiscussea at ne ast meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessar ves we can reauire them to raise the bank. We reau3.rea Mola at Beach and Adams Seab i Pro'ect to raise the bank s been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area . He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs . Bailey's question ? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable ; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn 't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly : There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed . (tape 249) -3-(6702d) 0 MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I, think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each, other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the. Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with k r it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Cour 1 to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC prof. 1 or the staff's proposal. o when it co time I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. $inlev: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and If the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we ould go with it with the additional assurance in th coons and rom eta r tnat t e ooa roblems potential flood problems, crainaae problems are going to be satisfied completely. tnerwise, oon't tnin there is a prof , t at come .&ow lands ofEB where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the riht way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the floodin I would sure ao along with the compromise worked ou Oetween t e developer and the nei hbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ...... Bailey: Yes, I would co along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? (6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 2.65) Pattinson: MOVE THE CO MISE PROPOSAL WITH T DITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND iandi Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I thank we ou ht to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague un es emi e i ou . ou are ca i a ou on t e back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La TDza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the. subject of --he compromise. Belly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks buildino heights and things of that nature so the motion as I nderstand it was to approve the compromise and this woulu be i nsistent with Lhdt compromise. Thompson : Mr. Palin wants to comment on at. Palin: Yes , the. amended conditions mitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions nec sary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to e chain link rence .along the flood control with slats , it speak the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line ich is 45 feet , it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being etween from 80 to 110 ' from the property line and allows doors, ' ndows , etc. in the westerly wall . All the conditions are struct ed appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions , how/ver, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions ' on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. (6702d) Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we re talkirg about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is ed into this -- are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence/ of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. ` Kelly: All right. I think that is understo and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility wi the fact that these conditions of approval were met and deter ned by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs., Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for thi sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had t e conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromis negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do thos conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning C mission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - a e those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC sti lated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He ha only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, e have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley : hat is fine then. U P attin on: Just one last comment is that these 16 conditions ar4 the r sidents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with tl.' the conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft th in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before -ie vote. 3ielly: I will certainly accept a motion on that . It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the ...... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. e La De La Lnza: The motion to be clear should incor orate b reference a t ose con itions that a, in th .- - letter rom the a oli v v body s on beet of mus c. Kelly : Are you convinced that Mr. Paone 's letter of - 8- i1 e su stantial uestion that Mrs. Finley 'ust osed for e inc Finley: It doesn' tLelly: That is wh I wanted ask that is because I don't see it m - Unknow.rn: Number 11 Ke 1 Oh it is - all right fine. Would we all refer to numhPr w r draina e and sewer improvement all be_ .....is this what you are ing a out? ou are talking about th 11 b o tt om Finley: No referring the the 1 er from Paul Cook on D- 3 a t th e oe where it sa s the Counci a_y sim 1 wish to include a condition that t e site e ra eo to t ate should the channel over top its banks low would be evenly distr'b o east an west sides. I think we inc u e that - that would be ......... (tape 298) Palin: May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition oL a royal on " a on the ma not the CUP wh I had stated o v aye cted on the CUP then we would be more than nappy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you or appropriate action t here. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mand c Mandic: Fine Kelly: I has been moved and seconded to a prove the CUP 83-1 d the 18 Condit o oval as stated in the 11-1 - letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes p ease. Wentworth : 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Paiin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. / Palin: (ta e 305 In our acket on aye 38 of the PC 'tion o a va ntative parcel map, condition no. 9 the hydrology, h droloqical sewer a er ca cu ations shall be su mu te or ro osed and future develo merit , the ed dr s a 1 be s own on the arcel map. As I un ers and it h 0o ing for a condition that would require equal flow over. (6702d) Kelly: Mrs. Bailey , is that satisfactor ? Bailey : As Public Works has su ested that w savin 't. That seems to e ere t ere conc usion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. 11 : I presume on the o ion we are about to TPM - de item no. 9 condition of a rov regarding h drolo hvd. lic sewer an wa or ca culations -- Is that correct Mr. . Palin The ver bottom of that states that pro osed drainage shall be shown on arce ma . You are in e process o a rovin that arcel mar) right nog. So w atever you wan o a a ere - is that co you want to make a s_a ement t a it s a e qraded to acc odat P ove w. you want to say you want it to rain to Hei ana Got and and Lhen across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thom son: sub ' conditions Mr Mavor F he indicated was approved v r meet ....(321) I think that once those aradinc lans are conditions is r 1 in the overall in the a royal accordin to en ineering design a is Works _r nt. Perhaps, that would Kelly: That is number 11 on e CUP it says that sewer drainace an street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works stanaatas.. Thompson: Perha s that would find the wa out of this once the en i a look at the h drauloav the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as protection to move approva of theTP 71 Bailey : If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they wou see t e project on tie parce map en at wou a satisf my concerns. n otner words not ust sa ing Public Works standards ecause we do not really know what those are in eac particu ar project. Cook: When you a prove the ro'ect tonight, if you would add that ou wou a a rove it sub•ect to a con ition as escri i paragraph of my. memo then that will take care o ne entire r,roblem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion ti' T TPM 83 - H ITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. -8-(6702d) Finlear Kelly: Seeing , other lights, I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth : All Ayes (tape 329) (6702d) TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 tJ t7 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that aD eal was that there was not enou. information: an consi eration iven regar ina the arainaae problem n -=-p p va o e evelo ment mi t add to the existing drainage pro gem within the surrounding neigh'oc -FFo-o. I e ieve -ia e wo iearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dead Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. -Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, th eport, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the le, -ty of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update tht City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the lette from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am unde the understanding that it was hand delivered to each o of you council members. Within that letter they propose a comp mise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewin the compromise position it is the consensus of the departme that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions a conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offer would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings settin ack 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 oot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn woul allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 4 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in at westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found thatin Lhe community this design and treatment has let to many co laints where they abut upon residential low density de elopments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs tha we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer s submitted some sections through the development which re ected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of inform ion. Essentially the Planning commission had approved builoi gs at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 eet in height. This is a reduction from the height ermitted irVthe zoning district from 40, feet down to 29. In the T 171- compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discusse he additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There as a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 fee in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. one and discussed with him if the developer was willing to con ruct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property ine would they concur with an 1S high building at the 6 foot setb k as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated o me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recom ndation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action d insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of th 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommend by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Pal' went to the map (no.•l54 on tape). MacAllister asked Palen a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palen responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is re mmending tableing CE 86-26? Palen the CE was not necessary a far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for s-aff? Seeing none, I will open the cuubli hearin Paone: (tape s its at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals pre ented to the council and stated their preference would be for staf s proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La L a: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setb- s as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the st m drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my con P - you see the report that we receivea from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 sic+S.Ta,;,!.,,lSisi'f7 !bi+y •q ;„"m Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drama e 'prob emleml s in ne area? But there was also a sug estion on t is and I wou like to know w et er or not you ee that you could inc ude this as a condition if t e ounce cesires. And that is we cou conaition that the site be raoea to insure that s ho'ld ne c annel ver top its banks overflow w eaua v cis r it.-Pa t-o Pa t a d west sid tape no rna wou a e w.at staff aff wou consider am r that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have problem with that. when I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had grading plan for the site. -2- (6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: if you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas : Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way . Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook : Our aradina m iens that we n ove must e graded to th satis` i n of the enalneerinq de artment and we w d require that they grade it so such a roblem would not be created. Thomas : So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic : In regards to leveling or ecualizin the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in ooao 1 ' s o ect broua t a aiaoram t at s owea LnaL project when it is brought uo to rade level i s goin to be about 2 r 3 feet higher on the east side over an aoove the we G ' Tnat i s one c that we raised it the last meeting and I am not sure how the can alleviate that o ro em . ne w ole thino has to be gra ea to certain levels . Like you say Tim, that is going to be a oig pro _em to overcome and I amt sure that they can do it anyway -----` come uo with a natura _ flow that as to e that io . Or requi them to raise the of er sice o the nank ? That w z roposa - as ciscusseo at ne ast mee ing. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessary yes we can require them to raise the bank. We reauirea Mola at Beach and Adams Seab Pro'ect to raise the bank. s been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to r:rs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it .appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) (6702d) I MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council' trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and . come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the. Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. o when it co h time I will go with the com romise romosal. Thank you.71 Pinlev: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we ould go with it with the additional assurance in tha cono"ons and from stair nat t e ooa roblems potential flood problems, crainace problems are going to be satisfied completely. tnerwise, con's t in there is a pro] l t, at come iow lands of Fi3 where we don't have to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the floodino I would sure Go along with t e compromise worked ou oetween t e developer and the nei hbors. r --- - Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ...... Bailey: Yes, I would co along with Patcinsor.'s motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? (6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good,job. (tape 265) Pattinson: M VE THE CO MISS PROPOSAL WITH T C DITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND ManYes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I drink we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of Va ue unle mi e i. ou . ou are a 2 a ou on t e back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of :he compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone : could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I nderstand it was to approve the compromise and this would be i nsistent with that compromise. Thompson : Mr. Palin wants to comment on at. Palin : Yes, the amended conditions mitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions nec sary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip , it speaks to e chain link rerce along the flood control with slats , it speak the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line ich is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being etween from 80 to 110 ' from the property line and allows doors , ndows , etc. in the westerly wall . All the conditions are struct ed appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions , how ver, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions ' on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. -5-(6'702d) Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim what we re talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is ed into this -- are you separating this? j IL Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrenc of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understo and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility wi the fact that these conditions of approval were met and deter ned by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for thi sort of clara.fication. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had t e conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromis negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do thos conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning C mission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - a e those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC sti lated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He ha only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, e have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: hat is fine then. Pattin on: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the r sidents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all the conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft th in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept.a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the....... Finley : It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information , please , Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. (6702d ) De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incor orate b reference a ose con itions that a in th - letter rom the a li bod s on heet of music m Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone 's letter o - 8- I su stantial uestion that Mrs. Finle ust osed for e inc Finley: It doesn't- ell : That is wh I wanted ask that is because I don't see it Unknown : Number 11 Ke I Oh it is - all right fine. Would we all refer to nu w r draina 9 :end --ewer improvement kl s all b ....is this w at you are fa _ inc a ou ? You are talking about th Finley: No referrin the t h er from Paul Cook ona sim lv wish to include a concition t at e site e raoeo to -111- r- 3 at the bottom ae where it sa s the Council m y t, at he should the channel over top its banks low would be evenly distr 'b P o east ann west sides . I think we inc u e that - that would be .....(tape 298) Palin: Ma I resoond to that. Yes Mr. Manor usually a condition o approval on a on the ma not the CUP - wh I had stated ave cted on the CUP then we would be more than nappy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you or appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you. Mr. Mandic Mandic: Fine Kelly: I has been moved and seconded to ap rove the CUP 83-1 d the 18 condi.tio royal as stated in the 11- letter from the applicant. May I ask for your votes p ease. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. 7Palin: (ta e 305 In our acket on ace 38 of the PC o a o va ntativeparcel map, condition no. 9 of th hydrology, hydrologi cal sewer a ter ca cu a ions shall be subm?:tte or ro osed and future develo ment , the ed dr s11 e s own on the arcel map. As I un ers and it h 0o ing for a condition that would require equal flow over. -7-(6702d) Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactor ? Bailey: As Public Works has su tested that w sa a 't. That seems to e ere t ere conc usion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. e l : I resume on the ot'on we are about to TPM - e item no. 9 condition of a rov regarding h drolo h d lit sewer an wa er ca culations -- Is Era correct Mr. Palin: The ver bottom of that states that pro osed drainage shall be shown on arce ma . You are in e process o a rovin that arcel a right no,. So w atever you want o a a ere - is that co you want to make a s a ement t a it s a e raded to acc dat a ove w. o you want to say you want it to rain to Hei an Got and and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Ma"or I think that once those arading Dlans are sub ' f-he conditions is r . in the overall conditions indicated in the a oroval accordin to en ineering design was am roved P is Works e nt. Perhaps, that would meet ....(321) Kelly: That is number 11 on e CUP it says that sewer -rainaae an s reet im rovements shall be in accordance with Public Works stanoards. Thompson: Perha s that would find the wa out of this once the en 1 look at the h drauloo the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as rotection to move approva of the TP " Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they wou see t e project on t e parce map en a wou a satisf my concerns. n of er words not ust sa ing Public Works standards ecause we do not really know what those are in eac par icu ar aro •ect. Cook: When you a rove the ro'ect tonight, if you would add that ou wou a rove it sub'ect to a con ition as escri t paragraph of my memo then that will take care o ne entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion w T A TPM 83 - H ITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. -8-(6702d) Finley: Kelly: Seeing no other lights , I would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth : All Ayes (tape 329) al White City Attorney canary City Clerk pink City Adminlatrator Goldenrod Departmental Data Request Made By - Depertrnert 12/15/86 Jamis tiT. Palin., Director. ,DereIop:ne.at Serviras INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney. Out- line briefly reasons for the request. Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. Type of Legal Service Requested: I I Ordinance [ i Resolutions [ j Contract/Agreement [ j :Insurance I.I.Bonds [jX Opinion All exhibits must he attached, or this request will be returned to you. [ I Exhibits Attached On October 10, 1983, the City Council conditionally approved Tentative Parcel blap No. 83-563. One of the conditions imposed was condition no. 9 which"says' ",'Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer, and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development'. The site shal1-,tt graded to, ensure that, should the channel overtop its banks, the overflow would! be equally distributed to the .e,ast and, wrest sides Due to a disagreement over, what; was intended by the condition, staff requested that the Planning Commission" clarify` it.' At the Planning Commission meeting a motion was passed "TO RHCOMMEtlb THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE.HNGINEERlNG. DEPARTMENT'S POSITION THAT THE GHAt7Zhc SHALL 1fl LEVEL IJITH.WO PORTION OF THE GRADE PROJECTING AlUV,E Tar C11ANNhL TOP", The "clarificationll is not acceptable to the developer who -feels; that x. Thee:conditio'n:imposed.by,the- Council is , clear; the . alarificatJon"represents °an.addit'icinal, conditt:o'n that was riot tt =of the approvcl .rend, e';rstaff a3,o.uld`:enfnr'ce the actual conditions, of approval other C11 nn i ire, p rc iv ec# `intent of the, Council. In retrospect, 12ev 1o11ment Services' does not t eel it. was appropriate foi staf to "sskr fhe L omni.ssxan to cl`o' rift' the condition.- ,HoEever: the,=,qus ioft now is whether or not the C staff should',disregarcl t1r:s Eep`t, lier- 3, 1986,ection_that the Coariisaiu i rook on thi"ty k..1. Sr} r - Ccunsil' _ on a'de:dlta® eot,tas rtaeti4ing `- a:Tla}e nottar Council actEon, det3red cn+pistio TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enoupgh,,, information"and co' nsic eration liven regardin t earainage problem 'and t'h'at-a'pp ova o e evelo merit mi ht add to the existing drainage pro em within the surrounding n ghdorhodd:"-'IThTI eve E'at These""two hearings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was, continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping-'will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you, chose a consultant to study the,f'lood D control channel. We have received a copy of the lette from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am unde the understanding that it was hand delivered to each o of you council members. Within that letter they propose a comp mise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewin the compromise position it is the consensus of the departure , that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions a conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offer would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings settin ack 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 oot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn woul allow normal industrialiactivities to take place in the 4 1 t setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in at westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that/in the community this design and treatment has let to many co plaints where they abut upon residential low density de elopments With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs tha we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer 4s submitted some sections through the development which re ected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the c ditions of approval were concluded in your packet of inform ion. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildi gs at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height ermitted it the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the J compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed•tthe additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There.ias a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 fee tin height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. one and discussed with him if the developer was willing to con ruct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property ine would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated Afo me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recomdation tonight is to sustain the Planning commission's action end insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of th 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommend ed by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Pal,i'n went to the map (no. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings,. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is rea6mmending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary a 'far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly : Are there an, other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will o en the oubli hearin . Paone: (tape s%arts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals pre ented to the council and stated their preference would be for staf sproposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La L a: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setb s as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the st m drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of m conc I VOL], see the re ort that we receive from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone:No I have not. Baile y: Summarizin g what we have done to this point to alleviate the drain ge problems'i' n t e area? But there was also a suggestion on t is and I would like to know w et er or not you eetrtt -YOU could include` this as __a condition if. e ounciT esires. And that is we coul con i`tion that-the site be ra ed to insure that should e c annel ver to its banks overflow w e ual v is r o the east a d west side ape n a wou - e w a staff you consider a or that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. -2 - (6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) 'Thomas : Mr. Cook , I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our qrading ,;plaans that wetapprgve must begraded to the R.rtis '_on of the eng neerin _ -_paartment and wwe Would require thatte . they grade it so such problemwould not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: 1n regards to levelin or e ualizin the banks of theme flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came inoppositiorf"` fi ss ec rougit a is ram Fa s owe a 'e project when it is brought a to grade level is goi to be about 2 r 3 feet higher on the east side over an a ove the we That is one co n that we raised at the last meetin and I am not sure how they can alleviate that ro em. T e w ole thin has _Lo be gra e to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is oing to be a ag pro em to overcome an I am no sure t at t ey can do it.-an^ y ay 9 - come u with a natura flow that as o e at hi . Or canwr, requi them to raise the o er si e o e ank? That wasg roposa was iscusse a e ast mee ing. (tape 20) Cook: If that become the bank. We re uire to raise the bank. necessr_yes we can re uire them to 'Mola at Beach and Adams Seabr s been done before. Pro raise act Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) (6702d) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone tarough the various discussions, I am ready to support. the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas staff has come up, AI -, with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal . o when it co timeI will go with the con romise ro osal . Thank you . inlg . I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson . We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think we could oo with it with the additional assurance in the cone` Tons js, and rom st'aff ' a e ooobl ems, otential flood problems, rainage roblems are going to be satisfied completely . erwise, doh _ n't t in there is a proje c'a£°`comes mow lands of HB where we don 't have to look with scrutiny . We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the floodin g I would sure oo along with { tie comprom iseworked ou b e t ween t he developer and the nei hbors. Bailey : May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is.after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ......{ Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? (6702d) ziey: Yes L omas : Well , all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out . All I want to do is support their compromise . They have both done a good job . (tape 265) Pattinson: JT, MOVE _THE GOM ROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE C (]DITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND h?- dj. : Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I nk we 1 ht to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of va ue.t.i7,tss z'e i "ou ou are a ik""hg a'fiou on 't e back page or the next to last page , actually it is 18 conditions that you are °alkt ;ig about . Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone : could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks building heights and things of that nature so the motion as Ifunderstand it was to approve the compromise and this would be i e6nsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on at. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions ;emu mitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to h'e -chain link tence along the flood control, with slats, it speak the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line ich is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being etween from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, ndows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structu ed appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, how,R'Ner, you have to go beyond the CUP and there ,are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can.amend the tentative map-for you accordingly. -5-(6702d) Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we re talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is Jed into this V1 Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrent /of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only.7 Kelly: All right. I think that is understo and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility wit the fact that these conditions of approval were met and deter ned by both the developer and the residents involved . (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. are you separating this? Finley: I was going to ask for thi sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. t Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had t e conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromis negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do thos conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning C mission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - a e those included in the conditions that we have here. Pali: The PC sti lated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He ha/ only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: Bu.t,/,ae have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Finley: ,'`hat is fine then, Pattie on: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the r sidents conditions. It does not mean that I.agree with all the conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft th in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certain!I .accept a motion on that . It seems to me that these conditions of approval are some ,.hat separate from the .... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza : The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all tTose conditions that ago in thel _1$ 83 letter from the apgl,icsn.„, .Th.aok,ay eyYbodY:iSA.o th._wsaA.e....,g„heet of itrcl'ude the u5stantial question that Mrs. Finnle just posed for eincluT on,, 118 -83Kelly: Are you convinced that Mrs Paone's letter _L music_ Finley: It doesn_!,_t- Keell : That „ is why Unknown: Number 11 Palin : May I respond to that .. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition off a roval on drain agF_-g - on the ma not the CUP whI had stated o _sW aye cted on the CUP then we would be more than Happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you 'br appropriate action there . eveenly aistrio o e east _an west sides I thin € we include that - that would be.........(tape 298) ghat he should the channel over top its banks52Ye low would be 11-5= 3 at the bottom,,,of the p ge,Y$where it saes, the Counci ma ; simplx wish , to includea condition that ti"e su1te,6ew cira`ec3o,r. " ` inley :No,., Id :m refrring the the lk.ter 0.from Paul Cook one " you are talk ingabout tr*e drainage ----- shall b ., acct da•n-o°...... is this what , i)e a're a ing a"'hou nu - y,Q.utsur_.e t-hesewer drainage and sewer improvements wanted ask that is because I don't see it Kelly OhT, it is 1Jn4,s: jj_all right fine. Would we all refer to Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kell : I has been moved and seconded to a rove the CUP 83.18 aQd the 18 conditions_o .approval as stated, in the 11-1 -8~ letter from t -eapplicant. May I ask for your votes p ease. Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. 5Palin: (ta e 305 In our packet on a e 38 of the PC Qn.d tion,S of a royal ntative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrolo ical sewer an er ca cu a ions shall be su mitte or ro osed and future development, the proposed drainage. s all be s own on the arcel ma . As I un ers and it the ouryo 0o ing for a condition that would require equal flow over. Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? regarding hydrolo9X h d r uTic, sewer and water "ca culations `W"-- Is Bailey As Public Works has suggested that ,,,k, wby.,Tsayin 4t Tha seeTns to'"b e'""where"'the're "co ic1us i on was and if that is to rest then i t is fine with me. jelly: I resume on the. motion we are about to r q rt ; ,,th TPM Oe item no 9 condition of aprova, tha'orrect control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. in to Hei an Got and and then across Heil into the flood acc..mdat, a" ove - toDo you wand to say you want'it to arcel ma right nom,. So whatever you wanes toad there - is that o you want to make a saxte"menftiat it sh"a5l e graded to Palin The very bottom of that states that promised draiinnagey shall be-shown on arc'e7mai Xo are in e process ofY" ap2rovinltht Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? conditions indicated in the a roval aceordin3 to en i eerig desi n was a` roved the ibsliWorks; _pram_ent. Perhaps, t at would su i<ttin o the conditions is .number 1] in the overall Thom son: Mr Mavor I think that one e those cradincyplans are meet ....(321) s an ar s. Kelly: That is number 11 onthe CUP it says that seweak}iage arv nd °s` rte`"eet tl mprovements shall _be in accordancF e with Public Works prop jeect. ecause se we do not really know what those are in eac par icu ar oncerns . In of er words not just saying Public Works standards„ `wo` u=ee t e project on e parce map en tfiat` wo"'Z 'sfy my Baile y: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they approvaof the TP„L4?.,. en Td Took at the hydraulog _g the area.... Kelly : Is Council satisfied with that as_ rotection to move Thompson: Perha s that wouldind_the way out of this once the Cook: When you a rove the roject tonight , if you would add that -wou a rove it subject to a con ition as escri e i ,,,as",t_,,, paragraph of my memo then that will take care o entir 'eproblem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion . ION TO AP , ,OYZ TPM 83 -56 TH C ITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. -8-(6702d) Finley -cjom- L,._ Kelly: Seeing no other Wentworth : All Ayes lights, I would ask for Council to vote. (tape 329) TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly: Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18, TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that a eal was that there was not enou information. and consi er-ation iven regar in t e raina e roblem va o e evelo ment mi t add to the existing drainage pro em within the surrounding neigh orE`o6-ff-.--I e 1eve fia e wo earings will be held concurrently. Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis, of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control or. Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information D, opment Services would like to offer to the council at this time. Patin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood' control channel . I did update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the lette from the developer 's legal council , Mr. Tim Paone. I am unde the . members. Within that letter they propose a comp mise position that understanding that J L was hand delivered to each o of you council residential low density de elopments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs tha we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer s submitted some sections through the development which re ected essentially the Planning Commissions action . Now the c ditions of approval were concluded in your packet of inform ion. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildi gs at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 eet in height. This is a reduction from the height ermitted i the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the position it is the consensus of the departme that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions a conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offer would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings settin ack 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 cot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn woul allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 4 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in at westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many co plaints where they abut upon they would be agreeable to however in reviewin the compromise compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone , they had discusse he additional setback as I previously reviewed with you.. There as a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 fee in height. After reviewing thePaone letter, I called Mr. one c.rd discussed with him if the developer was willing to con ruct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property ine would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setb k as conditioned by the Planning CommS.ssion. Mr. Paone indicated o me, yes they would be receptive to that therefore our recom ndation tonight is to sustain the Planning commission's action d insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of th 29 foot hight limit and go with all other conditions as recommend by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Pal' went to the map (no. 154 on tape) MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is re mmending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary a far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there an other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the ubli hearin . Paone: (tape s its at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals pre ented to the council and stated their preference would be for staf s proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La L a: Said the City Attorney has not problems with the setb s as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the sto:m drain channel (tape 201) Bailey; The drainage, as you know is one of m cone you see the re ort that we receive from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the draina e-rob s in e area? But there was also a sug estion on t is and I wou like to know w et er or not you ee t at you could inc ude this as a condition if e ounce aesires. And that is we cou condition that the site be ra ea to insure that shoe c annel ver to its banks overflow w eaua o s r o a t, a west sid ape no a wou be w a staff 'rou consider aooro. r that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. -2-(6702d) Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas : Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way . Doesn 't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our radin lans that we ove must e raded to th satis ' n of the engineering de artment and we w d re uire that they grade it so such a roblem would not be created. Thomas : So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: n re ards to levelin or ecualizin the banks of the flood contro channel it seems to me that the folks that came in 0 osie o s ro ect brou t a is ram a s owed a project when it is brought u to rade level is going to be about 2 r 3 feet higher on t e east side over an a ove the w Tnat is one c that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure how the can alleviate that ro em. e w ole thin has to be ra e to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is oing to be a ig pro em o overcome an I am not sure t.at t ey can do it anyway come u with a nature flow that as o e at 10 . Or requi them to raise the o er siae o r. e ank? That w roposa as aiscussea a ne ast mee ing. (tape 220) Cook: If that become necessar ves we can re uire them to raise the bank. we required Mola at Beach and Adams Seab Pro'ect to raise the bank . s been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May I respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesnt work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape 249) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning Commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location -Led them to o b-ck and sit and ne no=te w'th each oth r ndiwe as a I eg a g come up with a conclusion . It seems to be that even though the- Planning Commission has come up with their ideas staff has come up, with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to livewith it for a long time . If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can live with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty ,' of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal . o when it co time I -, will go with the con romise -ro osal . Thank you - inle I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did' send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied with the compromise I think We ould go with it with the additional assurance in th con3'--o-ns and rom s a a e ooo roblems otential flood roblems, ' raina e vroblems are going to be satisfied completely . nerwise, on't t in there i s a pro] t a come ow lands of SB where we don't have to look with scrutiny . We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the floodin I would sure o alon with t e 'compromise worked ou netween t e developer and the nei hbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? Kelly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like ...... Bailey : Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly Is that your only comment at this moment? -4-(6702d) Bailey: Yes Thomas : Well , all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out. All I want to do is support their compromise . They have both done a good job . (tape 265) Pattinson: OVE THE CO MISE PROPOSAL WITH T C DITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND ,andi&: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I thinkwe ou ht to clarify it more because this proposal, is kind of va ue- un es emi e i ou . ou are a i a6-)i on t e back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone : could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I nderstand it was to approve the compromise and this would be i nsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on at. Palin: yes, the amended conditions mitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions nec sary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to e chain link rence along the flood control with slats, it speak the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line ich is 45 feet, it speaks to the 18' height restrictions being etween from 80 to 110' from the property line and allows doors, ndows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are struct ed appropriately in that set of amendments. In your actions, how ver, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some condition on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map-for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we re talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is ed into this are you separating this? Palin: I understood the notion to be concurrenc of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understo and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility wi the fact that these conditions of approval were met and deter ned by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) I will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was going to ask for thi sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had t e conditions that are listed that . resulted from the compromis negotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do thos conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning C mission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the PC put on - a e those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC sti lated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He ha only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, e have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley: hat is fine then. Pattin on: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the r sidents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all the conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft th in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote . Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from the... Finley: It wouldhave to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza : The motion to be clear should incor orate b reference a ose con itions that a in th - - letter rom the a li pv bod is on sheet of mus1C _ Kelly: Are you convinced that Mr. Paone 's letter of 11-18 - 1 e su stantial uestion that Mrs. Finle ust osed for e inc Finley: It doesn' ell : That is wh I wanted ask that is because I don't see it m Unknown: Number 11 Ke 1 Oh it is all right fine. Would we all refer to nu wer draina e and sewer improvements ll i thi h t ?s a s s w a you are ing a ou..... Iou are talking about th Finley: No referrin the the er from Paul Cook on X11- - 3 at the bottom e where it sa s the Council ma sim 1 wish to include a condition that t e si e e ra e 0 t at he should the channel over top its banks low would be evenl distr' 0 east ana west sides. I think we inc u e that - that would be ......... (tape 298) Palin: Ma I res and to that. Yes Mr. Mayor usually a condition o a royal on on the ma not the CUP wh I had stated ave cted on the CUP then we would be more than appy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you or appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly : Dces that satisfy you Mr. Mandic: Mandic: Fine su mi tte or ro osed and future development, the r o ed dr s all be s own on the arcel ma As I un ers and it h 0o ing for a condition that would require equal flow over. -7- (6702d) Kell : I has been moved and seconded to a rove the CUP 83-1 d the 18 conditio royal as stated in the 11-1 - letter from t e applicant. May I ask for your votes p ease. Wentworth : 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. 5Palin: (ta e 305 In our acket on aae 38 of the PC t' n l,l o a va ntative parcel map, condition no . 9 of th hydrology , hydrolo ical sewer a er ca cu ations shall be Kelly: Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactor ? Bailey: As Public Works has su ested that w sa in 't. That seems to e w ere t ere conc usion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. ell : I resume on the otion we are about to TPM - de item no. 9 condition of a rov regarding h drolo h dra lic sewer an wa er ca culations -- tha correct Mr. Palin: The ver bottom of that states that pro osed drainage shall be shown on arce ma You are in e process o a rovin that arcel ma ri ht no So w atever you wan o a a ere is that o you want to make a s a ement t o it s a e raded to acc dat a ove W. o you want to say you want it to rain to Hei an Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly: Well, let's see. Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thom son: Mr Ma or I think sub ' the conditions indicated was a roved meet ....(321) that once those radin lans are conditions is r in the overall in the a royal accordin to en ineering design ic Works e t. Perhaps, that would Kelly: That is number 11 on he CUP it sa s that sewer draina e an s reet improvements shall be in accordance with Public works s anoar s. Thompson: Perha s that would find the wa out of this once the en i look at the h drauloa the area.... Kelly: Is Council satisfied with that as rotection to move approva of the TPM;7 Bailey: If I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they wou see t e project on t e parce map en a wou a satisf my concerns. n of er words not ust sa i.ng Public Works standards ecause we do not really know what those are in eac par icu ar project. Cook: When you a rove the ro"ect tonight, if you would add that f paragraph of my memo then that will take care o e entire roblem. ou wou a rove it subject to a con ition as escri i Mandic: I would like to make a motion. 1 I,,A TPM 83- H C ITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. (6702d) Finley: Kelly: Seeing no other lights , I would ask for council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) TRANSCRIPT CUP NO. 83-18 Kelly Item D-1 is an item opened and continued to this date regarding D-la appeal filed by Councilwoman Bailey to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 83-18; TPM 83-563 and CE 83-26 and ND 83-21. The basis of that appeal was that there was not enough information and consideration given regarding the drainage problem and that approval of the development might add to the existing drainage problem within the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that these two hearings will be held concurrently, Item D-lb which is an appeal filed by Inez Neuenfeldt and K. Dean Zitzo to the same items that I repeated earlier. This item is an appeal. The basis of this appeal was that not enough information and consideration regarding building setback and a landscape buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west and restrictions and traffic control on Heil Avenue. Does Council have anything to comment at this time? Staff, are you prepared to comment at this time? Thompson: Yes Mr. Mayor, a few additional pieces of information Development Services would like to offer to the Council at this time. Palin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as stated the item was continued for additional information, the report, we are hoping will answer those questions as far as the legality of the zoning of the flood control channel. I did. update the City Council on the prior 11-7-83 action where you chose a consultant to study the flood control channel. We have received a copy of the letter from the developer's legal council, Mr. Tim Paone. I am under the understanding that it was hand delivered to each one of you council members. Within that letter they propose a compromise position that they would be agreeable to however in reviewing the compromise position it is the consensus of the department. that we continue to endorse the Planning Commissions actions and conditions of approval in that the compromise position as offered would propose to have the industrial structures/buildings setting back 75 feet from the residential area or essentially a 45 foot setback from the flood control channel. This in turn would allow normal industrial activities to take place in the 45 foot setback as well as would afford overhead entry doors in that westerly wall of the industrial buildings. We have found that in the community this design and treatment has let to many complaints where they abut upon residential low density developments. With that, Mr. Godfrey has a couple of viewgraphs that we would like to review you. In your packet, the developer has submitted some sections through the development which reflected essentially the Planning Commissions action. Now the conditions of approval were concluded in your packet of information. Essentially the Planning Commission had approved buildings at 6 feet from the flood control channel, maximum height of 29 feet in height. This is a reduction from the height permitted in the zoning district from 40 feet down to 29. In the compromise position submitted by Mr. Paone, they had discussed the additional setback as I previously reviewed with you. There was a module building at 75 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet in height. After reviewing the Paone letter, I called Mr. Paone and discussed with him if the developer was willing to construct an 18 foot high building at 75 feet away from the property line would they concur with an 18 high building at the 6 foot setback as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone indicated to me, yes the y would be receptive to that therefore our recommendation tonight is to sustain the Planning Commission's action and insert one condition on maximum building height 18 instead of the 29 foot bight limit and go with all other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ..... At this point Mr. Palin went to the map (n:o. 154 on tape). MacAllister asked Palin a question regarding the height of the buildings. Palin responded (168 on tape). Mandic asked why staff is recommending tableing CE 86-26? Palin - the CE was not necessary as far as I know in that there are no exceptions granted. Kelly: Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Paone: (tape starts at 178) Paone discussed the three different proposals presented to the council and stated their preference would be for staff's proposal. (tape on Paone's presentation ends at 199) De La Loza: Said. the :ity Attorney has not problems with the setbacks as proposed in the 3 alternatives which would include the storm drain channel (tape 201) Bailey: The drainage, as you know is one of my concerns and did you see the report that we received from Paul Cook on 11/15/86 Paone: No I have not. Bailey: Summarizing what we have done to this point to alleviate the drainage problems in the area? But there was also a suggestion on this and I would like to know whether or not you feel that you could include this as a condition if the Council desires. And that is we could condition that the site be graded to insure that should the channel over top its banks overflow would be equally distributed to the east and west side. (tape 204) And that would be what staff would consider appropriate for that. Paone: Off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with that. When I go back and sit with my client, I request that I could come back. Bailey: In as much as the developer has not at this time had a grading plan for the site. Paone: Again, off the top of my head, it does not sound like it would be a problem. Bailey: If you would look at a copy of this or talk to Mr. Cook as we deliberate and see how it would go. Thank you very much. (tape 208) Thomas: Mr. Cook, I was wondering can we force them to drain that a certain way. Doesn't it have a certain standard anyway. Cook: Our grading plans that we approve must be graded to the satisfaction of the engineering department and we would require that they grade it so such a problem would not be created. Thomas: So it is automatically done when they get there plans approved? Cook: That is correct. Thomas: Asked Paone questions regarding the three proposals (tape 213) Paone responded (tape 216) Mandic: In regards to leveling or equalizing the banks of the flood control channel it seems to me that the folks that came in opposition of this project brought a diagram that showed that the project when it is brought up to grade level is going to be about 2 or 3 feet higher on the east side over and above the west side. That is one concern that we raised at the last meeting and I am not sure.how they can alleviate that problem. The whole thing has to be graded to certain levels. Like you say Tim, that is going to be a big problem to overcome and I am not sure that they can do it anyway to come up with a natural flow that has to be that high? Or can we require them to raise the other side of the bank? That was one proposal that was discussed at the last meeting. (tape 220) Cook: If that :jecome necessary, yes, we can require them to raise the bank. We required Mola at Beach and Adams, Seabridge Project, to raise the bank. It has been done before. Edgar Drakian: (tape 223 to 246) lives directly behind the channel for 15 years in the area. He stated concerns that more water into the channel would be a problem. Paone: May l respond to Mrs. Bailey's question? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in respond to this because the engineer is out of the country but it appears to be acceptable; when he returns, if that is how the Council conditions it, when he returns we would have to make an application for an amendment if it doesn't work but it appears that it will. So the answer to your question, is that it appears it will be something that will work. Kelly: There was no one else present and the public hearing was closed. (tape.2.49) MacAllister: Thank you Mr. Mayor. One thing that we should take a moment is first off to have Mr. Cook or staff again indicate the various things that are being done to the channel itself which has nothing to do with the public hearing but I think at the same time could alleviate the concerns of the public that are here. Then, after we have gone through the various discussions, I am ready to support the Planning commission's recommendation with the modification of staff of changing the 29 feet to 18 feet and that will be the motion of the three different ones that I would support. Thank you. Pattinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Approximately 30 days ago we had quite a few people in the audience from the neighborhood and in the interest of fair play and in the interest of compromise and without the facts of this Council trying to design a project at the location we asked. them to go back and sit and negotiate with each other and come up with a conclusion. It seems to be that even though the Planning Commission has come up with their ideas, staff has come up with their ideas; the neighbors of the location have to live with it. They have to live with it for a long time. If they have come up with a compromise that is going to work and the developer says we can li«e with that compromise, it seems to me it is the duty of this Council to go along with said compromise and not go back to PC proposal or the staff's proposal. So, when it come that time, I will go with the compromise proposal. Thank you. Finley: I have to agree with Councilman Pattinson. We did send this back to be worked out and I personally fearful that there may be problems resulting from this design but nothing is perfect and if the people who live there are satisfied, with the compromise I think we should go with it with the additional assurance in the conditions and from staff that the flood problems, potential flood problems, drainage problems are going to be satisfied completely. otherwise, I don't think there is a project that comes in the low lands of HB where we don't havF to look with scrutiny. We have to look at every project that is in a potential flood area and be very careful that we are doing it exactly the right way. So with the assurance from staff and the conditions on the flooding, I would sure go along with the compromise worked out between the developer and the neighbors. Bailey: May we formalize that as a condition when the motion is made or would you like to vote on that condition separately? K,--lly: I think maybe what I would like to do is after -- is that your total comment because I would like to have MacAllister reconsider because it looks like .... Bailey: Yes, I would go along with Pattinson's motion. Kelly: Is that your only comment at this moment? - -i - Bailey: Yes Thomas: Well, all I want to say is that I want to congratulate the developer and the residents for doing such a good job of working this out . All I want to do is support their compromise. They have both done a good job. (tape 265) Pattinson: I MOVE THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH AND THE ADDED CONDITION OF FLOOD CONTROL Thomas: SECOND Mandic: Yes, I kind of agree with what Ron is saying but I think we ought to clarify it more because this proposal is kind of vague unless we itemize it out. You are talking about on. the back page or the next to last page, actually it is 18 conditions that you are talking about. Is that what you are referring to Ron? Pattinson: Yes Mandic: OK, sorry about that. Kelly: May I please ask our City Attorney, Mr. Art De La Loza to communicate to Council. De La Loza: The motion as stated includes the conditions outlined numbered 1 thru 18 and should actually delete number 5 since that is the subject of the compromise. Kelly: Are you aware of that Mr. P.? Paone: could not hear (tape 272) De La Loza: Condition number 5 relates to the setbacks, building heights and things of that nature so the motion as I understand it was to approve the compromise and this would be inconsistent with that compromise. Thompson: Mr. Palin wants to comment on that. Palin: Yes, the amended conditions submitted with the Paone letter has amended all the conditions necessary which speaks to a 4 foot landscaped strip, it speaks to the chain link fence along the flood control with slats, it speak to the setback of the buildings from the westerly property line which is 45 feet, it speaks to,the 18' height restrictions being between from 80 to 110' from the property 14ne and allows doors, windows, etc. in the westerly wall. All the conditions are structured appropriately in that set of amendments. in your actions, however, you have to go beyond the CUP and there are some conditions on the tentative map that will likewise after you have taken that action on the CUP then we can amend the tentative map for you accordingly. Kelly: May I ask for refinement on that Jim. What we are talking about is a vote on the tentative map. Everything is tied into this are you separating this? Palin: I understood the motion to be concurrence of the developer and the property owner on the CUP only. Kelly: All right. I think that is understood and I think we seem to be uncertain as to the compatibility with the fact that these conditions of approval were met and determined by both the developer and the residents involved. (tape 282) 1 will ask Mrs. Finley to comment to Council. Finley: I was, going to ask for this sort of clarification. May I ask a question to Mr. Palin. Kelly: Please Finley: Mr. Palin, we had the conditions that are listed that resulted from the compromise'n.egotiation between the developer and the neighborhood, do those conditions include conditions that were put on by the Planning commission that did not involve the areas of disagreement? In other words, there must have been other conditions that the, PC put on are those included in the conditions that we have here. Palin: The PC stipulated 18 conditions of approval as does the proponent. He has only revised those that are necessary to reflect the compromise. Finley: But, we have the other conditions here. Everything is here. Palin: Yes Finley; That is fine then. Pattinson: Just one last comment is that these 18 conditions are the residents conditions. It does not mean that I agree with all these conditions. However, it is a compromise I will not to redraft them in any way. Finley: We really should refine this flood condition before we vote. Kelly: I will certainly accept a motion on that. It seems to me that these conditions of approval are somewhat separate from Lye.... Finley: It would have to be a condition Kelly: I would stand on a point of information, please, Mr. De La Loza are you going to unravel this for a new mayor. De La Loza: The motion to be clear should incorporate by reference all those conditions that are articulated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant. That way everybody is on the same sheet of music. Kelly; Are you convinced that Mr. Paone's letter of 11-18-83 includes the substantial question that Mrs. Finley just posed for the inclusion. Finley: It doesn't Kelly: That is why I wanted ask that is because I don't see it myself. Unknown: Number 11 Kelly; Oh, it is number 11 - all right fine. Would we all refer to number 11 - are you sure the sewer drainage and sewer improvements shall be in accordance ....... is this what you are talking about? You are talking about the drainage. Finley : No. I am referring the the letter from Paul Cook on 11-15-83 at the bottom of the page where it says the Council may simply wish to include a condition that the site be graded to insure that the should the channel over top its banks, overflow would be evenly distributed to the east and west sides. I think if we include that - that would be .........(tape 298) Palin; May I respond to that. Yes Mr. Mayor, usually a condition of approval on drainage goes on the map not the CUP. That is why I had stated once you have acted on the CUP then we would be more than happy to amend the conditions on the tentative map for you for appropriate action there. Finley: Fine Kelly: Does that satisfy you Mr.. Mandic: Mandic: Fine Kelly: It has been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 83-18 and the 18 conditions of approval as stated in the 11-18-83 letter from the applicant . May I ask for your votes please. Wentworth: 6 Ayes, Mac Allister No Kelly: Now some more hand holding please, Mr. De La Loza or Mr. Palin to make sure our tentative map includes where the drainage. Palin,: (tape 305) In your packet on page 38 of the PC conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map, condition no. 9 of the hydrology, hydrological sewer and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development, the proposed drainage shall be shown on the parcel map. As I understand it the Council is looking for a condition that would require equal flow over. (6702d) Kelly:Mrs. Bailey, is that satisfactory? Bailey: As Public Works has suggested that is why saying it. That seems to be where there conclusion was and if that is to rest then it is fine with me. Kelly: I presume on the motion we are about to entertain for the TPM 83-563 which will include item no. 9 condition of approval regarding hydrology, hydraulic, sewer and water calculations -- Is that correct Mr. Palin? Palin: The very bottom of that states that proposed drainage shall be shown on parcel map. You are in the process of approving that parcel map right now. So whatever you want to add there - is that do you want to make a statement that it shall be graded to accommodate equal over flow. Do you want to say you want it to drain to Heil and Gothard and then across Heil into the flood control? I am operating with only have the chips because I wasn't at your last meeting. I was on vacation and I don't have that prior discussion as back up. Kelly : Well, let's see . Are we going to start playing hydraulic roulette here? Thompson: Mr Mayor, I think that once those grading plans are submitted one of the conditions is number 11 in the overall conditions indicated in the approval according to engineering design was approved by the Public Works department. Perhaps, that would meet..... (321) Kelly: That is number 11 on the CUP it says that sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. Thompson: Perhaps, that would find the way out of this once the engineer would look at the hydraulogy of the area.... Kelly: Is council satisfied with that as protection to mov; approval of the TPM? Bailey: Tf I could hear from Mr. Paul Cook that this is how they would see the project on the parcel map then that would satisfy my concerns. In other words not just saying Public Works standards because we do not really know what those are in each particular project. Cook: When you approve the project tonight, if you would add that you would approve it subject to a condition as described in. the last paragraph of my memo then that will take care of the entire problem. Mandic: I would like to make a motion. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TPM 83-563 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE ADDITION OF THE MODIFIED CONDITION VOICED BY MR. COOK. (6702d) Finley: Second Kelly: Seeing no other lights, I Would ask for Council to vote. Wentworth: All Ayes (tape 329) C- : tic.,;t .:,_r•,(4 c T> j C<>'r K) l t 3g-,-fib 4)6 - C- -c c-v 1E (2^. "L"am' P 11 L (f2tt,.. ( j Paone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute MICHAEL J. GENOVESE- TIM PAONE SUSAN W. HALDEMAN VIRGINIA GUTE• RALPH R. MAZUR EI< •H'EHEERS OFA PROPr-OsAI CORPORATION November 18, 1983 Mr. Jim Palin Director of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 Dear Jim: HAND DELIVERED Enclosed with this. letter are copies of (i) a letter which will be delivered today to each member of the City Council and (ii) an agreement reached between the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, which borders this project, and the applicant on this project, M. Westland Company . As you are aware, my office represents M. Westland Company. If, after reviewing the enclosed documents, you have any questions or comments regarding ie agreement reached between the applicant and the residents, please give me a call so we may discuss any concerns prior to the City Council meeting on Monday night. I appreciate your courtesy and assistance in reaching a workable solution to the issues involved in this matter. A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION UNTINGTON BEACH VELOPMENT SERVICES MICHAEL J. GENOVESE` TIM PAONE SUSAN W HALDEMAN VIRGINIA GUTE" RALPH R. MAZUREK •wcMecRS or^ PRCressro CORPti ,PA1IQN Paone, Genovese, Haldeman & Gute A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 18, 1983 Don McAllister HAND DELIVERED 1121 Park Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentat'Te Parcel Map No. 83-563 Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 Conditional Exception No. 83-26 Negative Declaration No. 83-21 Dear Don: Attached to this letter is a copy of an agreement entered into between M. Westland Company, the applicant on this project, and the negotiating committee of Tract 6181, representing the residents of the community bordering the project (the "Agreement"). As stated in the Agreement, the applicant and the residents spent a substantial amount of time in compromising their respective positions. M. Westland Company desires to honors its commitment represented by the Agreement and urges you to approve the project subject to the cot ditions attached to the Agreement. However, recognizing that this Agreement does not hind the city council and in light of the recommendation of the Development Services Department that the project be approved in a manner consistent with the planning commission's prior approval, the applicant requests that the council take the following concerns into consideration if the council elects to approve the project with conditions different from those either (a' agreed to by the applicant and the residents or (b) approved by the planning commission: 1. A landscape buffer has not been required in similar projects. The applicant has agreed to a six-foot buffer with a six-foot building setback or a four-foot buffer with a forty-five foot building setback. Any greater landscaping requirement would adversely affect the design and circulation of the project and would make it very difficult for this project to compete with other projects in the area 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD • P.O. BOX 7760 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF 92658-0760 - (714) 640-1680 November 18, 1983 Page 2 which were not subject to similar restrictions . Suggestions that a fifteen-foot fully landscaped setback might provide a compromise are misplaced. Such a condition is totally unprecedented in prior city approvals and would work a significant hardship upon the applicant. 2. The placement of truck doors on the side of the project is only feasible with the minimal setback proposed by the planning commission . The residents have agreed to the placement of the truck doors at the rear of the buildings With a seventy -five foot setback from their property lines. 3. If, after the conclusion of the public hearing, the council desires to approve the project on conditions different from those either agreed to by the residents or approved by the planning commission , the applicant would request an opportunity to comment upon any new conditions which the council might consider . The applicant has made substantial concessions in reaching the proposed compromise. Any further restrictions on this project would be grossly inequitable. If you have any questions regarding this project, you may contact me at 64.0-1680 prior to the meeting . Additionally , I will be present at the meeting to answer any questions which might arise. Sincerely, Tim Paone /kg enclosure cc: Planning Department City Attorney Lee Miller November 1, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. Dear Sir, The residents of Tract 6181 and M. Westland Company met on October 27, 1983 to discuss and work toward a mutually acceptable and competitive industrial project at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard. Upon careful and detailed consideration, the residents', negotiating committee and M. Westland have agreed to conditions which beneficially satisfy their needs and desires relative to the proposed development. it is believed that this agreement should end the controversy of interpreting the zoning ordinance and locating the boundary between the industrial zone and residential zone. We have agreed to conditions which are greater than required by code and greater than required of similar nearby industriz projects. Changes in these conditions or additional conditions are likel to upset the attainment of the residential community's goals and/or greatly damage the proposed project's ability to successfully compete wit existing nearby industrial developments. We jointly ask that you approve the M. Westland Company industrial project subject to the atached set of Conditional Use Permit - Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commiss- ion approved Tentative Map - Conditions ofApproval- In a spirit of cooperation we have both given concessions. M. Westland must protect the proposed project's ability to successfully compete with recently completed industrial developments and the residents of Tract 6181 want protections for the future enjoyment of their property. The beginning negotiating positions varied greatly. The issues negotiated were as follows: A. Buildin Setback - The residents wanted the building setback from their property lines to be 75 feet. It was M. Westland's position that a strict reading of the zoning ordinance would require no setback from the project's property line but the spirit of the ordinance might require a 15 foot setback. The 15 feet plus 30 feet of flood channel would. be a. total of 45 feet from, the residents' property lines. B. Buildin Nei ht - The residents wanted the building height at the westerly side of lot 11 to be 18 feet. It was M. Westland's position that other recently completed nearby industrial developments had no building height restrictions and none should be required of this project. C. Landsca e BuZfer - The residents wanted a tree landscape buffer. It was M. Westland s position that other similar and nearby projects were not required to give any landscape buffers and had full use of all their property for building. The landscape buffer is an expense which, damages the proposed project's ability to compete with completed developments. D. Flood Channel Capacit - The residents wanted a delay in construction of buildings and pavement to give the City the opportunity for the timely and efficient installation of flood channel improvements before the 1984- 1985 rainy season. It was M. Westland's position that they can delay pavement and building construction until April 1, 1984 but no longer. -2- Further the capacity problem of the flood channel was not created by the proposed project and the expenses of channel improvements should not be paid by the proposed project solely. The attached conditions represent an agreement between the residents and M. Westland . In summary , M. Westland agrees to a 75 foot building setback from Tract 6181 ,_4 foot tree landscape buffer, 18 foot building height limit within 110 feet of Tract 6181, and a limited delay in some construction . The residents agree to no block wall on the proposed project's perimeter since most residents couldn't see the wall, no restrictions on location of doors and windows, no restrictions on the use of the area between buildings and landscape buffer, no requirements for noise studys, no construction delays due to flood channel improve- ments beyond March 31 , 1983, and to discontinue any and all objections to the proposed project if the attached conditions are approved by the City Council as attached. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this project. Please follow our wishes so that controversy and objections can end. 7)zz?Xe, t, William Lee Miller M. Westland Company 13070 Old Bolsa Chica Rd. Westminster , CA 92683 Sincerely Yours, Edward S. kian 16392 Magelaan Lane Huntington Beach, CA rank R. Pfeifer 16322 Magellan Lan, Huntington Beach, A Dean Zitko 16332 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, CA Tract 6181 Ne otiatin Committee: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 83-18 , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL * tNm ww 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1983, and the elevations dated June 17, 1983, shall be the approved site plans and elevations. 2. Commercial/office uses allowed in the project shall be governed by the list of uses contained in Resolution No. 1313 and shall be located only in those buildings and suites so indicated on the approved site plan. Any, change in the list of uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire,, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite. facility equipped to handle them. 4. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 5. A minimum 4 foot landscape setback area shall be provided along the western property line of Lot 11. This buffer area shall contain trees of sufficient size and species to provide screening and visual enhancement of the industrial use for the residences adjacent to the industrial use. Said landscape buffer shall be primarily trees and in accordance with the adopted landscape standards on file in the Depart- ment of Development Services. Redwood slats shall be installed in existing chain link fence and no other exterior walls or fences shall be required. - 6. The development shall comply with all requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 7. The second story lofts on the commercial suites shall be used for 'storage/industrial only rather than as additional retail space. 8. A soils analysis. shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 9. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior 'co the issuance, of building permits. 10. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. 12. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollu- tants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 13. A minimum 45 foot building setback shall be provided from the westerly property line of lot 11. Buildings may have doors and windows on the west walls facing the residential neighborhood. 14. Within 80 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 18 feet. Between 80 feet and 110 feet of the westerly property line of lot 11, building height shall not exceed 31 feet. Building height i n the remainder of the project shall conform .to the M-1 development standard for height. 15. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Toxic gases or matter shall not be emitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals or vegetation , or other forms of property, or which can cause any excessive soiling beyond the lot lines of the use. 17. Odors from gases or other odorous matters shall not be in such quantities as, to be offensive beyond the lot line of the use. 18. M. Westland shall not construct any pavements or buildings until after March 31,1984 except street and drainage improvements within the city right-o f -ways. Before April 1, 1984 M. Westland will be permited to grade the project and install underground utilities . On April 1, 1984 M. Westland shall be permitted to construct , buildings and pavements. N REQUES1 FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted to : Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted, by: Charles Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public 6orks••C- Subject : Phase I - Heil Avenue Flood Control Improvements Consistent with Council Policy?[i4 Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation , Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: Boyle Engineering Corporation has completed plans and specifications for the improvements to the Heil Avenue Channel and Drainage System. Council authorization is sought to solicit bids for Phase I of this construction. Pecommendat.ion _ 1. Approve plans and specie_rations. Direct staff to solicit bids for construction of Phase I - Heil Avenue Flood Control Improvements. Analysis : On September 17, 1984, Council selected the firm of Boyle Engineering Corroration to prepare final design, plans and specifications for the Heil Avenue Flood Control Improvements. Phase I of this construction consists of the construction of a rein forced box culvert under Heil Avenue for the C5-SC2 Channel and the installation of 113' lineal feet of new 36 RCP storm drain. The engineers estimates for the construc- tion of Phase I is $220,000.00. This project has an environmental categorical exemption. Funding Source: Construction costs:$220,000.00 Construction Contingencies,22,000.00 Total Funding $242,000.00 PevPnups have been budgeted in Account 826490. linage District No. 5 $ 43,000.00 urainage District No. Sc 93,000.00 Winte.rsburg Drainage District 94,000.00 City Flood Funds 12,000.00 Total Funds $242,000.00 Alternative Action: Deny approval of plans and specifications and delay constructia-i Attach ants : Lcr_ation ME- CWT:PEC•EC:dw Page 7 - Council Agenda - 12/1/86 G-5. BLUFF TOP .K - PHASE III - PLANS & 3CIFICATIONS - CALL FOR BIDS CC -69-7 - Approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for the construction of a bluff top vista point and access stairway at 20th Street and Pacific Coast Highway and approve Negative Declaration No. i6-46 assessing the environmental effects.F PPQoo ED 7-0 G-6. REJECT BID - RENOVATION OF HEATING VENTILATION/AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM - MAIN STREET LIBRARY - MSC-248 Reject bid for the renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system at the Main Street Library as submitted by Air Conditioning Systems Inc., and direct the City Clerk to return bid bond; authorize extra work on an hourly basis by the consultant engineer to modify the plans and specifications, as necessary to significantly reduce the project costs, including deletion of the air conditioning portion of the work. G-7. BID 'WARD - MARCU cCALLEN PARK - P E I - CAL-EX ENGINFz"IING CO - CC- & ND 86-6 - Approve Negative Declaration #86-62 asse 'ng t environmental effects of said project; accept low b n the amount of $288,310 submitted by Cal-Ex Engi ri Company for construction of Phase I Marcus alien Par reject all other bids, approve and autho '-n execution of appropriate contract and a ove expenditure of $3 141 from Park Acquisition evelopment Account 790 11.425 F-S T OFRSKOVV-1, M1 F A/0 F) AT "E-Gto G4IY A=::, fA1Nd t Tit A To G-8. HEIL AVENUE FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I - PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR BIDS CC-649 - Approve plans and specifications for the improvement to the Heil Avenue Channel and Drainage System and direct staff to solicit bids for construction of Phase I. P\p pRoo e lb 7-0 G-9. WARNER/LOS PATOS STORM DRAIN - PLA71S & SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR BIDS - ND 84-46 - Approve plans and speci.fica- tionsfo_ the construction of the Warner/Los Patos Storm Drain; and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids; approve Negative Declaration 84-46 assessing the environmental effects; add said project to the 1966 Capital Improvement Program and appropriate and approve the transfer of $341,000 from the unappropriated drainage fund balance (Acct. M301) into an expenditure account (826760) to be established foi said project. (1^/1/86)(7) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL , SECOND BY ROWE , TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-18 AND NEGA TIVE DECLARATION 86-43 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Limiting the height to two stories in the R2 district proximate to Main Street between Eleventh Street and Palm Street is consistent with the General Plan designation of low density residential. 2. Limiting the height to two stories in the R2 district proximate to Main Street between Eleventh Street and Palm street will serve to insure that future development in the area will be compatible with surrounding development to the north, east and west because these properties are similarly developed. C-8 CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION NO. 9 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-563r In 1983, the applicant was granted approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 and Tentative Parcel Map 83-563 for the construction of an Industrial Park located at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard. Several conditions were imposed based on concerns from staff, the. Planning Commission, the City Council and affected neighbors. The applicant is proceeding with the project and is requesting clarification of one particular condition which affects other secondary issues. Condition No. 9 of Tentative Parcel Map 83-553 reads: Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer , and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development. The site shall be graded to ensure that, should the channel overto its banks, the overf ow woul be e ua 1 distri uted to the east and west sides.' The last sentence is the portion the applicant is requesting clarificat i on of. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Frank G. Waller, 16352 Magellan Lane, stated that his house faces the new construction. If the channel should ever overflow his living room would flood with water. He is opposed to raising the grade. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -16- (6156d) Fotis Georgatsos , resident on Magellan , opposed the raising of the grade . He feels the dike is under-designed and that the channel needs enlarging. Tim Paone , representing the applicant , requested a clarification of Condition 9. He stated that the site will be graded to ensure that the sides would not overflow in case of flood. He questioned staff and the Commission regarding the deficiency of his plans. K. Dean Zitko, 16332 Magellon Lane, spoke in support of the project. He requested that the applicant live up to his agreement and not grade above the channel. Cal Faello, 16351 Magellan Lane, feels that the applicant should not be allowed to grade above the channel. An agreement has been made and it should be abided by. Robert Hardin, L62412 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the land buffer . He feels there are numerous violations on the project. He stated that hi:e retaining wall would not hold water in case of flood. The wall was not designed for that purpose. Mary Baroglio, 16282 Magellan, requested that the applicant not be allowed to raise the levy . She also stated that the block retaining wall on her property was not designed to hold water. Tim Paone , representing the applicant , stated that the block wall should not be a concern . In case of overflow the water will be equally distributed , as stated in the condition. Lee Miller , resident , questioned the Commission regarding the flood control channel improvement project.He stated that if the City would make their i mprovements to the channel it would alleviate the residents concerns. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangar gave a report on the results of the, sub-committee meeting held on August 27, 1986. He stated that the applicant is trying to comply with all of the conditions. A .spillway is being proposed so that both sides will share overflowing equally. He further stated that the applicant is willing to seal the resident 's rear block walls to assist in the avoiding of flooding of their property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL , TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S POSITION THAT THE GRADING SHALL BE LEVEL WITH NO PORTION OF THE GRADE PROJECTING ABOVE THE CHANNEL TOP, BASED ON FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:: AYES: Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood , Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT : Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED INTERPRETATION FINDINGS: a. Adjacent R1 property is presently 2-1/2 feet below the existing grade of the Industrial Park. b. Adding 1-1/2 feet of grading to the property will not meet the intent of equal distribution of overflow to the east and west sides should the channel overtop its banks. The block wall on the residents property to the west shall not be considered as a retaining wall for overflow purposes. C-9 ZONE CHANGE NO . 86-4/USE PERMIT NO. 86-7 /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 Zone Change No . 86-4 is a request to rezone block "B" to allow drilling activities . Both Block "A" and "B are currently zoned for oil operations , excluding drilling of oil wells , which permits existing oil wells and oil related functions including produc`ion, processing , storage , etc. subject to approval of a use permit. Use Permit No. 86-7 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation on both blocks. On May 20 , 1986, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 12746 and Tentative Tract 12747 to consolidate 20 lots and an alley into one lot on each block. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-1 ) was prepared assessing the environmental effects relative to the zone change and use permit. The environmental impact report represents a detailed assessment of the project , project -related impacts, alternatives and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. PC Minutes 9/3/86 _18-(6156d ) MARCH 1962 FOR EI/2, NW L-4 , SEC. 23, 75S, R//W. rR-JO•!M•/ 29 28 .rur•u:ln•.a r u rr• PAR t Pr JO-1 4 G.r6GC 4 24. 945Ar L'- 200, P.s. J0-/ P.KL 4 45 O O1,00 AC. L26IIGICI $ GOTHARD STREET 122. Lrd K PEI/N CNANNEL 36 PARCEL AIAP P H, 30-1 ROTE-Ak 45 &CL K PARCEL AVA(ASW SHOWN AY C97CYES N clrr 37 rr'ur•iww•wir 142.12 m . t2J.5.ll L 4Ke SSE872-30-126-1 SBE872--30-126.4 "o - EN.SE623-5-/1SHE672-50126-PA?5 PA R_ 2 R M. 30-/ 843AC. 28 27 29 y J BURKE LANE / 80 AC, 2 26ZACtCl 33' 00 GOTHARD P, M. 30-/ STREE T S