Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-16Approved as Corrected on 12-7-82 REVISED MINUTES APPROVED ON 1-18-83 MINUTES (CORRECTED COPY) HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNtNG COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Leigh Miller inquired about some open space that could be converted into a trailer space at a mobile home park in the City. Chairman Paone suggested that Mr. Miller get that information from staff. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1982, AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON TENTATIVE TRACT 10910 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-4, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach This LUE includes a staff -initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing to the General Plan and requests for changes in land use designations in six areas which correspond to the following zone changes: Nos. 82-12, 82-9, 82-18, 82-19, 82-16, 82-17, and 82-10 - also Code Amendment No. 82-12. Staff recommends that public testimony be taken and that these items be continued to the meeting of December 7, 1982, with the exception of Zone Change No. 82-17, which should be continued to the Decem- ber 21, 1982 meeting. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 2 Chairman Paone explained the overall procedure to the public. Florence Webb elaborated on the Chairman's explanation, stating that because of the large number of items and the fact that the 45-day review period on the EIR will not end until December 3, 1982, a continuance was recommended. Carol Inge gave a brief presentation on the LUE and the density bonus provisions proposed. Commissioner Porter stated his opinion regarding the procedure. He preferred that the EIR be certified prior to taking testimony on the land use element amendment. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the density bonus provisions. No one came forward to address this issue and the public hearing was closed. ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.1) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company The original request was to rezone 1.52 acres of property located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of York- town Avenue from R2-01-PD and R2-0-PD-CD to R5-0-CD. However, the applicant has requested that an "0-1" designation be put on the prop- erty so that present drilling activity can continue. The public hearing was not opened on Zone Change No. 82-12. The pub- lic hearing was opened on EIR 82-3 and LUE 82-1. Representing the applicant, Dave Eadie stated that because of economics and because the office park has access to the oil islands he supports the use of continuing Chevron's operation of drilling on the site, which calls for R5-01-CD. He further stated that the anticipated projection for oil operations on the site was at least the next ten to fifteen years. Nancy Schreiner spoke in opposition to the request; she felt it would lower property values in the area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 (LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.2) Applicant: M.D. Janes Company, Inc. A request to rezone approximately 25 net acres of property located on the east side of Goldenwest Street between Ellis and Talbert Avenues from RA-O-CD and Ml-CD to R2-0. The existing use is the mushroom farm. -2- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 3 Staff gave a brief presentation stating that residential alterna- tives were included in the report. Commissioner Porter felt that because City Council has expressed a desire to explore the possi- bility of affordable housing in the Central Park area this ,ossibility should be examined. Commissioner Livengood asked if an appraisal could be done on the property. Acting Secretary Webb explained that staff does not have the authority to hire an appraiser. A straw vote revealed that no other commissioners agreed with Mr. Livengood. However, Ms. Webb said staff would be happy to supply the commissioners with estim- ates and comparable prices on the property. The public hearing was opened on Zone Change No. 82-9, which is Area of Concern 2.2 on the LUE. George Alvarez, speaking on be- half of the applicant, supported the proposed zone change, stating that residential would not necessarily preclude the "open look" of the area. Ron Dryer, also speaking for the proposal, stated that the owner of the -property wishes to retire and would appreciate a timely decision. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18/ZONE CHANGE 82-19 (LUE 82-1, Areas of Con- cern 2.3 and 2.4) Owners: Huntington Beach Company and City of Huntington Beach Zone Change 82-18 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to add an oil suffix to the northeast corner of its property located between Cambro's operation and the City's water facility, which is generally located on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues. Zone Change 82-19 is the City -owned portion of the same area. This request is for Ml (Light Industrial) zoning. Because of the close proximity of the properties, the two zone changes were heard together along with the LUE Areas 2.3 and 2.4. The public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke against the proposed zone changes: Robert Trommler, Nancy Schreiner, Jerry Ford, Suzanne Horsburgh, Dean Albright, Mark Price, Donald Pierce, Bob Wilson, and Jim Craigens. The main concern was about the noise factor with the existing Cambro plant along with an anticipated increase in noise with a possible expansion of the operation. Other concerns were raised relative to a transportation corridor along the railroad right-of-way. Dick Hammond, general manager for Cambro, -3- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 4 spoke in favor of the proposed zone changes. He further felt that the company has attenuated the noise level to a minimum. The public hearing was closed on Zone Changes 82-18 and 82-19. Con':.issioners discussed the Pacific Electric right-of-way and the noise problem. Commissioner Schumacher suggested a qualified zoning be placed on the property so that conditions could be added address- ing the noise problem. There was discussion about projected oil operations in the area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADD THE "Q" DESIGNATION TO THE REQUEST AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO READVERTISE THE ZONE CHANGE (82-18) TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE IN THE REQUEST. Following discussion, this motion was amended to be M1-A-0-Q and to require a conditional use permit application to be heard by the Plan- ning Commission. After`additional discussion the final motion was made as follows: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO READVERTISE THE ZONE CHANGES REGARDING THIS AREA, LEAVING THE OIL DESIGNATION WHERE REQUIRED, REQUIRING A "Q" DESIGNATION WHERE REQUIRED ON THE CAMBRO DEVELOPMENT, AND REQUIRING SUBMITTAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, The Chairman called a three -minute recess in the meeting. ZONE CHANGE 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT 82-12 (LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.4) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina Landal Development and Pacific Development, Inc. The zone change and code amendment would establish a specific plan on 13.7 acres of property located on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes, rezoning the property from ROS to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. The purpose of the plan is to permit a mix of open space and recreational uses, commercial -4- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 5 uses, residential uses, a public marina, parking, and uses inci- dental to these activities. Claudette Dupuy of staff explained on the LUE portion of the plan only recreational and residential -uses would be allowed; that the zoning would be handled by the specific plan. Jim Barnes gave a presentation on the zone change and the code amendment. He stated that the specific plan was prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the staff establishing specific standards for use of the property. One area of the plan would permit the construction of 48 residential.units which would be consistent with the recom- mendation of the land use element amendment. Commissioners had some questions about the density of other comparable condominiums and the possibility of obstructing the view with regard to Coastal Act regulations. Commissioner Schumacher inquired as to the highest the building can be constructed under the specific plan. Mr. Barnes said that, although the plan speaks of a 45-foot building, with the measurement calculated at ground level it could be as high as 55 feet above existing grade. In actual stories, that would translate to four or five. The public hearing was opened. Dick Harlow gave a presentation in favor of granting the request. He recited a historical account of the club area, updating that to the recent denial by the City Council of the previously proposed "guest cottages." The following persons spoke in opposition to the zone change and the code amend- ment: Louis Cardenas John Cronn Ed Sundberg Marvin Beitner Mr. Weeland Ken Kirk Michael Cavallo Luanna Young Chuck Ford Lee Whittenberg Donald Altig Bonnie Altig Frank Weber Pauline Robison Peter Young Morris Stone Dean Albright Mrs. Schwartz The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed plan: Sheldon Grossman Jim Sargeant Shell Grossman Chuck Bennett Ken Moody Harold Prouse Donald Watson Dick Kagasoff Doctor Ben Bill Hartge John Silver Doris Ahadpour Neal Wells Peter Shore (owner) On the opposing side, a petition was submitted with over 1,000 signatures. Also, such issues were raised as the tennis club members being "forced" to lose their membership and join somewhere else; that the concept of recreation open space presented in the beginning would be changed; that the proposed density would cause traffic problems; that views would be obstructed; and that it would be inconsistent with the coastal regulations by not provid- ing adequate access to the waterways. Arguments in favor stated that the propssed development would improve the "live aboard" prob- lem that currently exists; that it would benefit the community -5- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 6 as a whole; and that it was the best plan that has been proposed so far. It was also pointed out that the petitions received against the proposal may have been misleading, as most of those signing the petition were opposed to the opening of Edgewater Lane, which was erroneous information. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amendment No. 82-12. A straw vote was taken on Commissioner Liven - good's suggestion that staff be directed to prepare alternate find- ings for denial, with result as follows: OPPOSED TO SUGGESTION: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir IN FAVOR OF SUGGESTION: Porter, Schumacher, Livengood . Commissioner Porter asked staff to explore what impact the addition- al slips in the marina would have on the parking and to investigate just how much of the parking could be attributed to "live aboards." There was some concern about the liquefaction of the ground, whether the building would sink, or the possibility of water getting into the subterranean garages if there was a severe tide change. Commis- sioners wanted to know what the acreage and density were on the Weatherly Bay condominiums. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82•-12 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEM- BER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 (LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.5) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 5.47 acres of property located at 17161 Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Mainten- ance Yard, from Ml (Light Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home). The public hearing was opened. Leigh Miller spoke in favor of the pro- posed zone change on behalf of the owner of the Beachview Mobile Home Park. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change No. 82-17. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WAS CONTINUED UNTIL THE MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -6- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 7 A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO RECON- SIDER THE LAST MOTION: MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1982, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON DECEMBER 14, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Zone Change No. 82-10 (LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.6) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 1.2 acres of property located at the south- west corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from Ml-A to R1 (Low Density Residential). The public hearing was opened on the zone change. Robert Overby spoke against the proposed change of zone. He stated that at the August 3, 1982 Planning Commission when the item was tabled the Commission had said the 48 persons signing a petition submitted against the change of zone would be notified. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO REVIEW THE TAPE OF THE AUGUST 3, 1982 MEETING REGARDING SPECIAL NOTIFICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL AREAS OF CONCERN RAISED AT THAT MEETING HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher The public hearing on Zone Change No. 82-10 was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -7- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 8 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 BE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, AND THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING THEREON BE LIMITED TO NEW TESTIMONY ONLY. Staff Planner Florence Webb pointed out that staff is recommending that the public hearing on EIR 82-3 be closed so that staff can take the pub- lic testimony received thus far, respond to it, and incorporate both comments and responses into the final document. Discussion ensued be- tween staff and the Commission regarding the appropriate procedural steps to be followed. Commissioner Livengood clarified his motion by statinq that it had not been his intent to close the public hearing on anything, but to leave the Chairman free to limit further testimony to new information only. He added that he would prefer to leave the hearing open. Secretary Palin explained the EIR process - a public hearing at which oral comments are accepted is required to be held during the 45-day posting period for the EIR, and written comments must be accepted up to the end of that 45 day period, in this case the third of December. The final EIR will be comprised of this draft EIR with the supplemental information and responses; this is the document that the Commission must certify as adequate prior to action on the entitlement requests. He added that leaving the public hearing open to the next meeting would mean that comments might be made at that time which the staff would not have time to address and incorporate into the final EIR as required for compliance with CEQA. This in turn could pose legal problems and leave the action of the City on the EIR open to challenge. Art Folger of the City Attorney's office concurred with this explanation, adding that leaving the Chairman the discretion of determining what new testimony would be accepted at a continued public hearing, as suggested by the motion, would tend to make the action on the EIR more "attackable" and subject to successful challenge. WITH THE CONCURRENCE -OF THE SECOND, LIVENGOOD AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THAT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 BE CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 7, 1982 REGULAR MEETING. THE AMENDED MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone closed the public hearing on Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. Commissioner Schumacher requested that staff submit information con- cerning the past history and present status of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club property; she also asked what the reasons were for the change of zone on the property from R1 to ROS which was made some years ago. -8- 11-16-82 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 9 Other areas of concern involve the deeds and dedication on the original tract map in the area and the desirability of establish- ing pierhead lines in the bay. Chairman Paone stressed that it is important for the Commission to understand the possible legal ramifications of documents submitted by the applicant, and by consensus the Commission directed staff to provide the above in- formation as a background report to the land use element amend- ment for that area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None At the suggestion of Commissioner Higgins, a straw vote was taken to determine if Zone Change No. 82-10 (for Area of Concern 2.6, Banning Avenue at Magnolia Street) should be readvertised by staff to add a PD, Planned Development, suffix to the proposed low density zoning. The vote produced the following results, and staff was directed to proceed with the readvertising: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to permita change of zone on approximately 20 acres of property located southwesterly of the proposed extension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future alignment of 38th Street from R4-0 to R4-21-0, High Density Residential District combined with Oil Production, having a maximum of 21 units per acre. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one come forward, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher - 9- 11-16-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 10 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 Applicant: Superior Electrical Ad A request to permit an additional freestanding sign within 180 feet of an existing freestanding sign, in lieu of a 600 foot separation, on property located in the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. Because the hour was late, the applicant agreed to a con- tinuance; therefore, the public hearing was not opened. Chairman Paone assured the applicant that the special sign permit applica- tion would be heard first on the December 7 agenda. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS CONTINUED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 82-2 Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Applicant: Primo Market A request to permit the extended use of a nonconforming roof sign at an existing building in the Five Points shopping center. The applicant was not present. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 82-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. to the next regular meeting of December 7, 1982. J,gmds W. Palin, Secretary Tim Paone, Chairman -10- 11-16-82 - P.C.