Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-16MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1980 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT AGENDA: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer None Commissioner Schumacher requested that Consent Agenda Item A-3 be removed from consent agenda for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK, ITEMS A-1 AND A-2 (MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1980 REGULAR MEETING AND CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-13) WERE APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Schumacher requested additional information on the size and exact location of the pump station proposed under Con- formance with General Plan No. 80-14. Bruce Gilmer of the Department of Public Works described the project, saying that Clay Street will be widened a ---id the pump station facility set back from the street so that no obstruction to traffic line of sight will occur; the area will also be landscaped. The City will have fee title to the land. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-14 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-23/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 79-59 Tabled December 4, 1979 Applicant: Mola Development To permit construction of 224 condominium units on a one -lot subdivi- sion of a 12.5 acre site located on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 700 feet south of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reviewed the time frame on the project and the envir- onmental document as prescribed by State law, briefly reviewed past action by the Commission and staff, and called the Commission's atten- tion to a letter from a concerned citizen regarding the subject pro- posal and the draft minutes of the September 9, 1980 study session distributed for the Commission's information. Consultant Jim Crisp presented a recapitulation of the salient points he had brought out at the study session. The consultant's findings are that the site contains materials that are either toxic, explosive, flammable, or carcinogenic, which means that ingestion, inhalation, or skin absorption could have chronic or acute health effects over short- term or long-term periods of time depending on the concentrations of hazardous materials discovered. He again described possible restoration techniques and the results of each, saying that all but total excava- tion appear infeasible and less than totally effective. Mr. Crisp informed the Commission that an outline format of a plan for handling excavation of the site has been submitted to some of the concerned agencies which would be involved with that procedure and some of the steps established. This plan will be addressed further. Commissioner Winchell inquired if there is a feasible way to restore the site other than by excavation if it were not being considered for residential development. Mr. Crisp replied that the site had been investigated in a much broader manner than just as residential, but that there are partial restoration techniques which could provide temporary mitigation but not long-term solution. For instance, it would be very difficult to provide total encapsulation of the materials by any available means, and seismic activity would always threaten to destroy the integrity of any encapsulation mechanism which might be installed. Commissioner Schumacher asked if some neutralizing agent could be used on the surface to percolate into the soil prior to any excavation, to which Mr. Crisp replied that impervious lenses under the site would prevent penetration down to the hazardous materials; he also noted that any neutralizer which might be forcibly injected into the site would itself require removal and the injection bores would themselves make excellent conduits into the surface aquifers. He noted that there is a company investigating a type of volcanic ash which might be used for this purpose, but it is in the experimental stage and its byprod- ucts are not known as yet. -2- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 3 Jim Stahler, State Department of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Management Section, addressed the Commission. He said that his agency is in agreement that the best proposal available is total removal, but that a contingency plan for possible evacua- tion and a method of shutting the operation down immediately if odors should get out of control are a necessity. Ed Camareno of the South Coast Air Quality Management District was in the audience but had no further comments to add. Chairman Porter discussed the legal requirements, concluding that the Commission seemed to have no choice except to require an environmental impact report, in light of the identified odor impact which would result from excavation. He discussed the con- tents of such an EIR and the need for concurrence from the applicant. Peter von Elton, legal counsel for the developer, addressed the Commission to agree to a continuance to Tuesday, December 16, 1980; however, after further discussion between the Commission and Mr. von Elton he indicated that he could not at this time commit to a further continuance beyond the December date in the event the EIR process was not completed by that time. He out- lined the process by which a consultant had been selected and asked that the Commission review the actual development plans at this time to give the applicant the benefit of its comments on the concept. He noted that the willingness of Mr. Mola to excavate the site would be based in part on the Commission's opinion of the project itself. Chairman Porter directed that staff renotify all those persons in the area who were on the prior mailing list of the meeting in December. The meeting was opened to comments from the public. Ray Diaz, Planning Director of the City of West Covina, addressed the Commission to express the position of his city on this pro- posed excavation of the site. He said that it had been their intention to call for an EIR prepared and reviewed by the appro- priate agencies which would provide written certification and assurance that the toxic waste can be transferred safely and with- out hazard to the citizens of West Covina. He indicated that he would be submitting a letter to staff delineating specific areas they would like to see addressed in the EIR. John Fort, representing a group of residents in the vicinity, urged that extreme care be taken in the clearing of the site to make sure of safety of the surrounding residents. He specifi- cally asked that mitigation measures address airborne particulates, gas problems and the odors which will emanate from the operation. -3- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 4 Ellen McMahan addressed the Commission to inquire why residents near the project who had been taking water from nearby wells had never been notified of the potential danger. Jim Barnes said that it is the responsibility of the Orange County Health Department to test the water wells and inform users if there are imminent dangers to their health and safety; city staff has been in contact with the Health Department on this project. After discussion, the Commission directed staff to make further contact with Orange County and ask for copies of their reports. Margaret Wilson, user of a water well on Green Street, addressed the Commission to express her concern about filtration into the water table and the possibility of airborne contamination and urge that the site be cleaned up as soon as possible. Linda Babbick informed the Commission that even when the gas gener- ated from such excavation was not at a danger level it would still affect children with asthma and allergies, the elderly, and sick persons, and that should be taken into consideration in the EIR. Carol Greenwood spoke to agree that the materials should be removed but that studies should be done on the surrounding areas to see how they would be impacted. She suggested halting all building on land surrounding the site until an EIR is completed because of the possi- bility of pollutant migration. Charles Beauregard pointed out that there are food -producing fields and trees in the area which may also be contaminated, and that this should also be addressed in the EIR. He also urged a review of the actions of past and present owners of the site. Dave Cary questioned whether the Bryant report presents a true pic- ture of the actual concentrations of hazardous materials on the site. Chuck Osterlund said that in his opinion the situation on the site can only become worse if nothing is done. He would hope that the minimal excavation process outlined by the report is implemented, excavating only a small portion at a time. Cynthia Dull suggested that the report contain information from other jurisdictions which have encountered the same or similar problems. Cathy Lambert also urged study of the surrounding areas for the possibility of methane gas explosions. Vapor studies and core studies off the dump site should be dealt with in the EIR. An unidentified member of the audience brought up the possibility that some of the material off the site may actually have been dumped in its location instead of having migrated. He questioned the validity of the study, saying that mercaptans were found on the ad- jacent site but none on the actual dump site, indicating that other contaminants may also have been missed in the study. -4- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 5 Peter von Elton again spoke to inform the Commission that his firm has received unsolicited reports about persons living in the vicinity of the site who are in poor health (including two with cancer) and who believe their illnesses are the result of drink- ing contaminated well water and/or inhalation of particulate matter originating from the site. Stan Cohen informed the Commission that he has been in contact with the Orange County Water District and received information that Well #1, closest to the site, had not been tested since 1970. He also said the District had told him that wells tested in 1974 in the Bolsa Chica had showed only salt water intrusion and no toxic materials. He said that in his opinion the EIR should, if excavation is to be permitted, address the following: How long will the excavation take; how deep and how much dirt will be re- moved; where will the dirt be dumped; how will it be transported, how packed, how many trucks used, and what routes will be taken; what should residents in the area do while the excavation is taking place; how strong will the odors be, when and how will the digging be stopped if the odor becomes too great; what State agencies will be on hand during all phases of excavation; what will occur on the site in the event of rain during excavation; and if fresh dirt is to be brought in, how much and how will it be transported. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the points which had been brought up at this meeting and the information which it would like to see included in an environmental impact report. Commmissioner Winchell pointed out that the City might be left in a difficult situation if excavation were started and not completed by the developer. Legal counsel Jim Georges said that a completion bond should be required in the event excavation is permitted, but not necessarily addressed in the EIR. Timing on an EIR was ex- tensively discussed and the consensus of the Commission was that it would be advisable to schedule a study session prior to any public hearing on the EIR to allow ample time for review. Staff was directed to schedule the actual construction project on the site for review at the Commission's first meeting in October. Staff was also directed to investigate the building taking place on the property directly north of the subject site to see if development or occupancy could be halted if the situation seems to warrant such action. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY GREER STAFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO PURSUE SOME METHOD TO STUDY ADJOINING AREAS TO DETERMINE IF THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE MOLA SITE ALSO AFFECT OTHER SITES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -5- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 6 ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION, HAVING FOUND THAT CLEARING THE PROPOSED SITE MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, REJECTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 79-59 AND CALLED FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-23 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853 WERE CONTINUED, WITH THE CON- CURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m. 1 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 - APPEAL (Cont. from August 19, 1980) Applicant and Appellant: Webb Morrow To permit a six (6) foot high wall to encroach three feet, eight inches (318") into the required front yard setback on property loc- ated on the east end of Ragtime Circle. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that a request for further continuance has been received from the applicant/appellant, as well as a communicatiqn from an attorney representing an abutting property owner. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 (APPEAL) WAS CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT/APPEL- LANT TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -6- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-24 (Cont. from September 3, 1980) Applicant: Huntington Beach Industrial Park To permit a mixed use development on property located on the west side of Springdale Street and east side of Transistor Lane between Engineer and Machine Drives. Savoy Bellavia reported that staff and the applicants have worked together to modify the list of permitted uses, as directed by the Commission at its prior meeting. The public hearing was reopened. No one was present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. The amended list was reviewed and suggested amendments discussed; e.g., limiting food establishments to one per street frontage and deletion of the "Chinese" food designation. The Commission again discussed the policy of allowing commercial uses in the industrial zones, felt by some to be a weakening of existing com- mercial developments in the city. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION ADOPTED AMENDED -RESOLUTION NO. 1266 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Porter, Greer, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-24 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE LIST OF USES IN RESOLUTION NO. 1266, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses in the general area. 2. The proposed project complies with the provisions set forth in Article 951 of the ordinance code. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element and provisions set forth in the City's General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated August 21, 1980, shall be the approved layout. 2. The elevations, locations, and dimensions of the signs sub- mitted as a planned sign program dated August 11, 1980 shall be the approved sign program for the development. -7- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 8 3. Any revisions to the list of uses stated in Resolution No. 1266 shall be reviewed by and adopted by resolution of the Planning Commission. 4. All of the conditions imposed on the approval of Administrative Review No. 78-115 shall still be valid and shall still apply to all subsequent development of the subject project. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this condi- tional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Porter, Greer, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter directed staff to research Section 9511.4(b) of the ordinance code with the objective of preparing a standard list of uses for mixed use developments and to set the entire concept of mixed industrial/commercial use for a discussion item on a Commission agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-21 Applicant: Frank Standard/Mike Taylor To permit the expansion of an existing storage and auto dismantling yard located on the southeast corner of Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has submitted a written request for continuance to the meeting of October 7, 1980. The Commission discussed the non -complying status of the present use, the reasons for this non-compliance, and the criminal prosecution out- standing on the use. Legal counsel Jim Georges suggested that the hearing on the proposal be continued until that prosecution is resolved. Mr. Bellavia explained that part of the property that is being util- ized for the yard was not included in the original entitlement, and the applicant was advised by the City Attorney's office to file this request to bring the site into conformance with the ordinance code. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-21 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASON FOR DENIAL: The applicant has failed to conform to the conditions of approval im- posed upon the original Conditional Use Permit No. 75-10 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, NOES: Greer, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Porter, Bauer -8- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-30 Applicant: MDC Realty Company To permit a change of zone from Ml-A to M1-A-MS on property located on the northwest corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue. Savoy Bellavia explained that the General Plan designates this area as a potential site for highrise development. He described the conceptual layout and location of the two proposed six -story buildings. The public hearing was opened. Richard Masjoan addressed the Commission to discuss the setbacks which would be imposed on the construction on the site. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-30 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Greer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-14 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The subject property has been identified as part of General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 as a secondary area for multi -story development. 2. The MS suffix is consistent with Section 9453 of the Hunting- ton Beach Ordinance Code which states that the MS suffix may be combined with the M1-A base zoning district. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Greer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: THIRTY-EIGHTH STREET ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Initiated by the Department of Public Works June Catalano reviewed the alternatives presented by the Depart- ment of Public Works and noted that this review is intended to -9- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 10 ensure that no adverse impact on the boundary of the proposed linear park would result from an adopted alignment. She also updated the Commission in regard to the County's negotiations with Signal -Landmark, saying that the County has accepted Signal's application to develop the Bolsa Chica with some developed areas and some open space; three alternatives have been submitted. Whichever is finally adopted will impact the County's circulation system and quite possibly the City's as well, and the Commission may wish to review the Circulation Element to attempt to minimize crossings of the park. Commissioner Kenefick emphasized that she would be opposed to any action which would impact the potential open space of the Bolsa Chica or give Signal -Landmark the impression that this Commission supports its position in the Bolsa Chica. Ms. Catalano said that the suggested action would not have that effect but would only implement a prior agreement with the County to look at precise alignments of streets in the Circulation Element as they affect the linear park proposal. The Commission discussed the alternatives and the alignments of other streets in and around the proposed linear park and Huntington Central Park. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings of the studies conducted on the Edwards/Thirty- Eighth Street extensions which establish that the alignments necessary to implement the City's Circulation Element will not impact the bound- aries of the proposed linear park and direct that as more definitive information is available concerning the proposed County amendment to the Bolsa Chica area, the County and City Circulation Elements should be reviewed and consideration given to minimizing crossings of the linear park. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 Initiated by the Advance Planning Division Upon recommendation from June Catalano, discussion of this amendment was continued to the meeting of September 23, 1980. INCLUSIONARY ZONING STUDY - UPDATE Initiated by the Advance Planning Division Upon recommendation from June Catalano, this item was continued to the meeting of October 7, 1980. -10- 9-16-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 16, 1980 Page 11 MONTEREY STREET CLOSURE Secretary Palin reported that a request for legal opinion on Monterey Street has been submitted to the Attorney's office; when an answer is received it will be forwarded to the Commission. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL BE REQUESTED TO DIRECT THE ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THE CLOSURE OF MONTEREY STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None POLICY FOR INSTALLING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN RURAL ZONE This item was continued to the meeting of October 7, 1980. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Secretary Palin reviewed actions taken at the September 15 City Council meeting for the Commission's information. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Bannister discussed the open space provisions for planned residential developments in regard to possible further requests for small planned development projects. After review, the Commission directed staff to investigate generation of some ratio of common open space for such small projects which, because of land area, could not comply with code requirements set forth for standard PRD's. Staff will include some recommendations on private open space as well, to compensate for a possible reduc- tion in the common open space requirements. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO A STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1980, AT 7:00 PM. MarcusU�:�4rter. i man -11- 9-16-80 - P.C.