Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-17APPROVED ON 9-8-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Higgins ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1982, WAS APPROVED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES ON PAGE 4, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Paone ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested that a copy of the letter staff is preparing to distribute to all persons who were previously notified of a zone change request by Shell Oil Company for a loca- tion at Springdale and Heil be submitted to the commissioners. He also repeated a request that notices of public hearings be distributed to the individual commissioners when they are adver- tised. After some discussion, staff indicated that in some in- stances it will be necessary to provide this information on the nights of Commission meetings. Commissioner Mirjahanger informed the Commission that he will be on vacation on September 7, the night of the next meeting. Chairman Paone announced that barring objection from the Commis- sion he would take items out of order in the agenda so that persons present for items at the end of the agenda would not be required to stay through the public hearings on the redevelop- ment plans. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-18 Applicant: Roy and Kathleen Rinaldi To permit establishment of a child care center in an existing school building located south of Yorktown Avenue approximately 800 feet west of Brookhurst Street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Rinaldi, applicant, addressed the Commission to urge approval of his request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Porter pointed out that in the future it would be desirable to depict the site as two sep- arate schools (Oka and Bushard) to eliminate possible confusion in the mind of the public. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-18 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed child day care center is generally compatible with surrounding land uses because the property was originally devel- oped as a school site. 2. The child day care center generally complies with applicable provisions of the ordinance code (i.e., open space, parking, etc.). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated July 13, 1982 shall be the approved layout. 2. 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 of the applicable zoning laws. Any such' decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Liven400d, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -2- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 3 TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach To consider recommending approval of the Talbert -Beach Redevel- opment Plan and certification of the EIR to the City Council and the finding of the Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan. Tom Tincher, Director of Business and Industrial Enterprise, prefaced his presentation of this plan by a general overview of the redevelopment program as a tool or resource to assist private development in selected areas of the community. This is done by providing financing alternatives for the support of public improvements, to bring about cooperative planning, to provide relocation assistance, and to ensure the appropriate consolida- tion of parcels as needed. The plan asasubmitted is an update of the preliminary plan previously distributed to the Commission, and changes will be highlighted. Mr. Tincher described the nature of the proposal and showed slides of the area. He noted that the staff is in the process of review- ing a draft agreement with a property owner in the area, is drafting an agreement for a second major owner whose property comprises about two-thirds of the total project area, and is in the final stages of firming up an agreement with the William Lyon Company for the senior citizens project. He closed by indi- cating that the Talbert -Beach plan contains no changes from the preliminary plan. The Commission discussed future financial impacts to the City in terms of fire and police protection and installation of necessary public services; access to the project and accessibility to transit facilities; reasons for inclusion of the park site in the redevelopment area; zoning; treatment of the adjacent indus- trial property and impacts of the existing industrial uses on the proposed housing units; and the adequacy of the responses con- tained in the EIR to the comments raised from review of the draft EIR. In regard to the environmental documentation, it was the concern of the Commission that if questions are not answered at this time in regard to water, reclamation, solar access, and. other issues there may not be a time when they can be raised again if the EIR is certified as adequate. The difficulty of addressing specific impacts when no specific project is available was pointed out. Commissioner Porter said that some of these problems could be dealt with at this time because they relate to the typo and density of development and not to a specific form that development would take. Legal counsel Art Folger also expressed reservations about saying that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, noting that in his opinion such a finding would be premature. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak on the proposal. -3- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 4 The Commission considered outlining the problem areas it sees in the EIR as part of the resolution, only to be informed by Jim Barnes, staff planner, that if the Commission identifies significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated it would then be necessary to adopt a statement of overriding concerns to justify certification of the EIR. Commissioners Winchell and Schumacher felt that statistics should be included which would provide a cumulative total on already approved as well�as proposed projects, so that total impacts on water and sewer capacities, etc., would be available. Mr. Tincher indicated that the EIR is not intended to serve as an environmental document for any future construction project within the planning area and that as specific proposals come forward they will have to stand on their own merits in terms of environmental effects. Chairman Paone agreed, stating that most of the criticism would be more appropriately addressed at the project level and in his opinion the EIR is adequate for what the Commission is actually !reviewing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD-AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1294 AS PROPOSED. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone NOES: Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Further discussion centered on the structure and wording contained in Resolution 1294. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1294 AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 1 AND 3, WHICH WOULD BE DELETED AND THE NUMBERING CHANGED APPROPRIATELY. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-19 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit construction of two bank buildings, two office buildings, and a restaurant within Subarea B-1 of the Seabridge Specific Plan, located on the east side of Beach Boulevard south of Adams Avenue. Florence Webb informed the Commission that the senior citizen housing proposed by the applicant is not a part of this proposal; however, staff analyzed the layout with that housing in mind and would like the Commission's reaction to provision of such housing. It was the applicant's suggestion to provide that housing in the parcel shown as "not a part," and the commercial and office uses could be used to -4- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 5 write down the senior citizen units. She also reminded the Com- mission that actual approval of the senior citizen housing would require an amendment to the Specific Plan and submittal of a developer's agreement by the applicant. Jim Barnes outlined problems with onsite internal circulation in the commercial layout. The public hearing was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission to concur with the staff's recommended action with the exception of Conditions 6, 10, and 12 which he asked to be deleted. He explained that his project is not a typical shopping center and provision of an internal system of walkways would not be needed, that the small square footage of the proposed banks would ensure that the drive - through traffic will be very limited, and that the requirement of a developer's agreement for the senior citizen project is not necessary at this time. The Commission discussed with Mr. Mola the rationale for the proposed layout of the site, the possible modification of the approaches to the drive -up windows instead of actual deletion, the possibility of placing the senior citizens units within the multi -family portion of the specific plan instead of the commer- cial (an alternative which Mola indicated would not be compatible with that project), and the use intended for the garages on the plan. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Staff and the Commission discussed staff's recommendations. Florence Webb explained that the concern in asking for a devel- oper's agreement had been to make sure that the small corner section did not remain empty for an extended period of time; how- ever, the applicant has submitted an overlay showing that he could bring in some other development if the senior citizen pro- ject did not materialize on that site. In response to question from the Commission, City Engineer Les Evans said that the center medians in both Beach and Adams preclude any left turn movements into the project and Public Works sees no problem with the access as proposed. Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, asked that parking credit be given for the loss of spaces which might occur because of the Commission's desire to change the approaches to the drive -up windows. This was discussed and the Commission concurred that staff should be authorized to work this out with the developer when it is known what configuration the drives would take and how many spaces might be lost. -5- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 6 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-19 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is in conformance with the policies and development standards contained in both the City's General Plan and the Seabridge Specific Plan. 2. The proposed development will not adversely affect Surrounding properties. 3. Onsite circulation problems identified through the site plan re- view process can be mitigated through redesign of the approaches to the drive -up teller windows and appropriate designation of areas for pedestrian access to buildings on the site, as condi- tioned in the approval of this request. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations received and dated August 12, 1982, shall be the approved layout except for the modi- fications necessary to be made to comply with Condition No. 10 of these conditions of approval. 2. Offsite improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 3. Sewer, drainage, and water improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 4. The subject buildings shall.be provided with systems related to fire protection and life safety as deemed necessary by the Hunt- ington Beach Fire Department and all applicable codes. 5. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. The perimeter of the resource production area as shown on the site plan shall be sufficiently screened and buffered from adjacent uses in a manner acceptable to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. The method of screening could include either fencing and/or intensified landscaping within the resource pro- duction area. 6. Appropriate designation of areas for pedestrian access to the buildings from the parking area shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services. Painting and/or paving shall be used to identify pedestrian accessways through the parking lot. -6- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 7 7. If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g., high-pressure, sodium vapor). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 8. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this develop- ment shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the pro- ject shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 10. The drive -up teller windows shall be accessed from a common area and two drive -up lanes shall be provided for each bank. Credit for the parking spaces lost by complying with this re- quirement shall be approved by Planning Division staff. 11. Access to the resource production area from the commercial parking lot shall be prohibited. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach To consider recommending approval of the Yorktown -Lake Redevelop- ment Plan and certification of the EIR to the City Council, and finding the Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan. Tom Tincher informed the Commission that, after discussion with the principal property owner in this area, staff would like to insert the following change in S. 2.2, page 4, of the plan: "The imple- mentation of the Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Plan is predicated upon the execution of a satisfactory disposition and development agreement with the existing property owner." He explained that this statement is being included to carry out the Ci,ty's philosophy of maximum owner participation in the programs. The public hearing was opened. -7- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 8 Dave Eadie, representing the Huntington Beach Company, indicated that his firm is in agreement with the City with the suggested amend- ment giving them time to work out a development agreement. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, RESOLUTION 1296 WAS ADOPTED WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DELETION OF ITEMS 1 AND 3 IN THE RESOLUTION, AND THE CERTIFICA- TION OF THE EIR RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach To consider recommending approval of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Plan and certification of the EIR by the City Council, and finding the Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan. Tom Tincher informed the Commission that wording has been added to the plan which would require 60 percent of the property owners in this area representing 60 percent of the property to concur with the plan before it is put into effect. The Commission discussed water, fire protection, and sewer facilities in the area and whether or not the comments received on the draft EIR have been adequately responded to in the final document. Commissioner Porter expressed the opinion that if not addressed at this time there will never be a time when the Commission can address the im- pacts from development of the area, to which Mr. Tincher responded that more detailed responses can be included in the EIR for the Down- town Specific Plan when more information is available on the type and density of development which will occur. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1295 DELETING ITEMS 1 AND 3 AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MAIN -PIER AREA. Chairman Paone objected to the inclusion of the 60 percent.require- ment in the plan, stating that the use of eminent domain should not be subject to being blocked by a property owner who does not wish to participate in the plan. -8- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 9 ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS AMENDED TO RECOMMEND DELETION OF THE PARAGRAPH REQUIRING CONCURRENCE OF 60 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTING 60 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA FROM THE MAIN -PIER REDEV- ELOPMENT PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach To consider recommending approval of the Oakview Redevelopment Plan and certification of the EIR to the City Council and find- ing the Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan. Mr. Tincher explained that staff's only recommendation on this plan is that the.large central section shown on the map be exempted from eminent domain with the intent of using the plan itself to promote continued private sector transition and upgrad- ing, plus support in providing public improvements. He pointed out a :small property in the southeast corner of the map which he would like to have incorporated into the area that could be subject to eminent domain if required. The public hearing was opened. Frank Mola, owner of property Within the plan area, addressed the Commission to note that he has recently had a General Plan amendment and zone change processed on his property (within the proposed exempt area), and would obviously go along with the redevelopment plan. There were no other persons to address the Commission in regard to the plan, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion centered again on the adequacy of the re- sponses in the EIR, specifically in regard to crime statistics. The Commission also questioned the exclusion of portions of the area from public acquisition through eminent domain. A motion was made by Livengood to adopt Resolution 1297 deleting items 1 and 3, recommending to the City Council the certifica- -9- 8-17-82 - P.C._ Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 10 tion of the EIR, and amending the redevelopment plan so that no sec- tion of the area shall be exempt from eminent domain. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Commission and legal counsel discussed procedure. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO ADOPT RESOLU- TION 1297 DELETING ITEMS 1 AND 3, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND THE ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None The proposal is automatically continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-7 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to amend Sections 9102.1.1.1, 9162.1.1.1,- 9202.1.1.1, 9232.1.1.1, 9201.1.1, and 9231.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to incorporate language into the Rl, R2, R3 and RA residential zones prohibiting development of single, substandard'lot(s) which have at some point in time been held in common ownership with an adjacent lot(s). Savoy Bellavia outlined the difficulty staff is encountering in the interpretation of the code and subsequent problems of enforcement. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one -was present to address the proposal. Commission review ensued. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION APPROVED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-7 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION CUT-OFF TIME Initiated by Staff A motion was made by Porter that no public hearings will commence after 10:30 p.m. and that, following conclusion of any public hear- -10- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 11 ing which was started before 10:30, agenda items D through I will be disposed of. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RESCIND ITS PRIOR ACTION TO CUT OFF PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER 10:30 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD THAT NO PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE COMMENCED AFTER 10:30 PM; MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Patine, Schumacher ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None CITY COUNCIL ACTION Acting Secretary Florence Webb reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of August 16, 1982, for the Commission's information. She also announced that the Council has set the date for a study session to consider the mobile home conversion ordinance for September 27, 1982. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-25 Staff is requesting a reconsideration of the extension of time given this item at the August 3, 1982 meeting, because of new information which has since surfaced. A continuance to Septem- ber is being asked to permit further research of the conditional use permit application. Legal counsel Art Folger informed the Commission that the law is fairly well settled that items cannot be reconsidered, because an applicant must be able to place some reliance on the action taken. Ms. Webb explained that the basis of the applicant's request had been that a certain condition had been placed on the project by the Coastal Commission; during research, staff had discovered that no such condition had been imposed by the Coastal Commis- sion and there was concern over the validity of the reason for the requested extension. Mr. Folger then replied that there are a few cases where there has been found to be new substantial evi- dence justifying reconsideration, but he did not think the fact -11- 8-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 17, 1982 Page 12 the applicant's tenant was going to have to convert the use to a motel has any bearing on the one-year extension. Commissioner Liven - good then recommended that, based on what counsel has said, no action be taken on this item. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested that a presentation be made at the next Planning Commission meeting on the Board of Zoning Adjustments - its function and how it operates with regard to the Planning Com- mission. Commissioner Livengood also asked that future staff reports include specific sections of the ordinance code which are being considered in the review of projects; he further directed that these be high- lighted for ease of reference. Commissioner Winchell asked that a new list of Commission members and committee appointments be submitted. She also requested informa- tion on the planned redevelopment tour. Commissioner Paone directed that copies of the Commission bylaws be included in the next packet. Commissioner Schumacher discussed setback requirements in the Townlot area for three-story construction. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Florence Webb Acting Secretary :df Tim Paone, Chairman 1 -12- 8-17-82 - P.C.