Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-07APPROVED AS CORRECTED ON 1-4-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1982, AFTER THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION WAS MADE ON PAGE 5 WHICH WILL READ, "ON THE OPPOSING SIDE, A PETITION WAS SUBMITTED WITH OVER 1,000 SIGNATURES .". IT WAS APPROVED AS CORRECTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEM: Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED NOT TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNTIL THE MANDATORY REVIEW PERIOD HAS EXPIRED. IF STAFF OR COMMISSION FEEL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF AN ITEM WARRANT ADDI- TIONAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE, A SEPARATE HEARING MAY BE SCHEDULED DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, NOES: Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Superior Electrical Ad. H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 2 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 within the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Chris Kimball, representing the appli- cant, made a brief presentation on the proposed sign. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The existing signage along Edinger Avenue, combined with the pro- posed signage totals less than the maximum allowed square footage; however, the total number of signs complies with the maximum allowed. With the addition of the proposed sign (the total num- ber of 4), no additional freestanding signs will be allowed on the Edinger frontage. 2. The variation in sign heights and locations affords visibility to all signage. 3. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sign will be located at a controlled intersection which will provide a traffic vision safeguard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The sign shall be constructed in accordance with the location and design demonstrated on the sign location plan received an dated October 25, 1982, and the sign elevation received and dated October 4, 1982. 2. There will be no additional freestanding signs along the Edinger frontage. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . NO. 82-3 This Land Use Element Amendment includes a staff -initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing to the General Plan; two City -initiated requests to change land use designations on H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 3 City owned property and four requests from private applicants for changes in land use designations. These six areas of concern also relate to zone change requests. Staff suggested that the Commission handle the EIR and the amendment by separate review of each separate proposal with a straw vote taken on each portion; the EIR and the amendment as a whole (respectively) would then be approved by a formal vote and the adoption of the reso- lution. The Commission concurred with this approach. The Commission was also given the option to ask for executive session at this time to discuss legalities with representative of the City Attorney's office. Commission consensus was to proceed without an executive session. Public testimony on the EIR was received on November 16, 1982. EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.1 A request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the designation on property located 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown, from medium density residential to office professional. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.1 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.2 (The Mushroom Farm) A request by the Janes Company to change the land use designation on property located east of Goldenwest Street, north of Ellis Avenue, from open space to medium density residential. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.2 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No, 82-3, Area of Concern 2.3 A request by the Cambro Manufacturing Company to change the land use designation on property located at the northwest corner of Huntington Street and Clay Avenue (Cambro Manufacturing Plant), from medium density residential to industrial. H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 4 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.3 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour) A request by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina to change the land use designation on property located north of Warner at Edgewater Lane (Huntington Harbour Beach Club), from open space to mixed development. Staff stated that a number of comments on this portion of the EIR were received. Further, staff felt that the pro- posed change of land use is consistent with the Coastal Element. Commission discussed the possible effects of a denial as it relates to the recent Land Use Plan adopted by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Palin stated that if the Planning Commission chose to deny it, the present land use designation of open space would remain. Commissioner Schumach noticed that there was no mention in the document of a soils test and asked Richard Harlow, representing the applicant, to respond. Mr. Harlow stated that things of this nature would be addressed at the time a conditional use permit application is submitted on the actual project. He further stated that there should be no problem as the harbor is man-made. Commissioner Livengood stated he would support the findings made in the EIR, but would oppose the request for a chaftge in designation as submitted. However, if such designation were to be approved, he would oppose the construction of 48 units, feeling that the maximnn number of units should be no more than 32. Commissioner Mirjahangir will abstain from voting on the zone change and code amendment, but will vote on the EIR and the LUE. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.4 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located west of Gothard Street, north of the City Yard (Beachview Mobile Home Park), from industrial to medium density residential. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.5 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir n �1 1 H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 5 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.6 A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located east of Magnolia Street, between Banning Street and the Orange County Flood Control Channel, from industrial energy production to low density residential. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.6 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, OVERALL CERTIFICATION OF EIR NO. 82-3 Brief discussion took place by the Commission reiterating some points that were previously brought out. Some discussion took place regarding the Talbert redevelopment area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, EIR NO. 82-3 WAS CERTI- FIED AS ADEQUATE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir Chairman Paone announced the resumption of the public hearing on Land Use Element No. 82-1 and reminding the public that only new testimony will be received on each area of concern. LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.1 (near Main and Yorktown) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Seeing no one wished to address this area of concern, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this portion of the LUE. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.1 OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 6 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.2 (Mushroom Farm, Ellis/Goldenwest) Applicant: The Janes Company Staff stated that pursuant to the Commission's request, a response was made to include discussion on affordable housing in this area of concern. Staff also obtained an estimate of the value of the site with the present zoning, of $6.7 million. The Commission was also aprised of the fact that the City Council continued their discussion on the Planning Mode Study to their December 20, 1982 meeting. Since there was no further testimony, the public hearing was closed on this area. Commissioner Porter disagreed with the statement made on Page 19 as it relates to housing that ". . . the City has no policy except in the Coastal zone". He felt that on Page 69 of the General Plan Hous- ing Element that this policy was stated. Commissioner Winchell agreed with Mr. Porter's comment. Mr. Palin recalled a specific issue that was before the Commission on property located at Adams and Beach. Fie said that although the Commission recommended affordable housing, the City Council did not adopt the recommendation as "policy", but he further agreed that the Housing Element does stress that the City encourage affordable housing. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED DENIAL OF AREA 2.2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The Commission recommends that the existing open space and recreational designation be retained, based on the following findings: 1. Because of the site's unique location adjacent to the Huntington Central Park and Sully Miller Lake, future development of the site as an additional recreational facility would seem to be the most compatible land use. 2. Open space and recreational land use designation would also be consistent with future expansion plans for Central Park. 3. While low density or estate residential would be compatible with surrounding uses, there could be potential conflicts with the heliport and firing range. 4. Residential development would isolate the two sections of Huntington Central Park. S. An office development on this site would be a high intensity use adjacent to open space and would, therefore, be incompatible. 6. The Planning Mode Study showed that currently there is no demand for offices on this site. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 7 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.3 (Cambro Manufacturing Plant) Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing Company Carol Inge informed the Commission that pursuant to their request, the maps in the LUE were amended in Area 2.3. The Chairman resumed the hearing on this area, once -again asking that only new testimony be given. Juan Lopez, a resident in the area, spoke against the proposed request, stating that problems that now exist,(traffic, parking, noise, odors, etc.), would be further exacerbated. There being no further testimony, the public hearing on this area of the LUE was closed. Commissioner Porter stated that he supported the LUE, but added that it was a matter of necessity to attach conditions to the zone change to insure some measure of compatibility. Commissioner Winchell brought out the point that the plant has been in existence a long time. Mr. Palin stated that a conceptual site plan has been submitted by the ap- plicant in conjunction with the zone change request. He further stated that Cambro wants to be a good neighbor and he would like to see them remain in Huntington Beach. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.3 BE ADOPTED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON PAGE 32, SECTION 2.3.3 OF THE L.U.E. DOCUMENT , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour Beach Club) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina Chairman Paone announced that now was the time to take any new testi- mony relative to Area of Concern 2.4. Louis Cardenas, speaking against the requested land use change stated that he agreed with the report by the Public Works Department shown in Attachment 3 on page 38. How- ever, he felt that traffic problem, being mitigated directly across from the Beach Club property, would now be "pushed upstream" and will not disappear. Richard Harlow, speaking for the applicant, stated that any other details could be addressed in the specific plan document. Since no other new information was presented, the public hearing on Area 2.4 of the LUE was closed. Mr. Palin stated that although there is no sidewalk on Warner Avenue, that this issue would be addressed at the time of the conditional use permit application; and that the project would also recommend some modification at the end of Edgewater to handle the landscaping of that area. The Commissioners discussed the method that was used to calculate the density. Before the Commission made a motion on this matter, Art Folger advised them that the validity of the ROS zoning was not the matter before them. H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 8 Commissioners also discussed procedures as they relate to land use amendments, that although they were not required to come up with find- ings on an approval or denial, the City Council requested that they express their reasons for the vote. City Attorney's office agreed with this statement. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2.4 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed land use designation is inconsistent with the certi- fied Local Coastal Program for Huntington Beach. 2. A mixed development is not compatible with the existing surround- ing development. 3. The existing General Plan land use designation of open space is compatible with the existing development which allows all uses proposed in the mixed use designation, other than residential. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed on Area 2.5 of the LUE. Seeing no one wished to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2.5 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. A change of zoning and land use -designation on the subject site would not be in conformance with the City's stated goal of main- taining the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. 2. The existing mobile home park can continue to operate in its present zone as a legal nonconforming use under a mobile home park overlay; additionally, even with a residential designation and zoning, the park would also operate as a nonconforming use. 3. The MH zoning requires that park size be 10 acres with a maximum density of 9 units per acre. The subject mobile home park is 5.6 acres in size and is developed at a density of 14.5 spaces at present. Thus, it is not in conformance with the MH re- quirements. 4. The existing incompatibility between the City's maintenance yard H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 9 and the mobile home park would not be alleviated by the proposed residential zoning and, in fact, that incompatibility could be exacerbated by any future residential development. S. Under the existing industrial zoning, the mobile home park over- lay would require the property owner to present any proposal for change to the City for approval. Likewise, any future development. of industrial uses on the property will be brought before the City for consideration of special buffering and analysis of drainage and access problems. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.6 (Banning and Magnolia) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed against the proposed use. petition that included anot stated that there must be s is maintaining this "green against the proposed change hearing was closed. on Area 2.6 of the LUE. Robert Overby spoke He submitted pictures and an additional her block of surrounding residents. He ome entity (maybe the County of Orange) that area'. Madelyn Van Dorton also spoke of land use designation. The public Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the City had requested staff to analyze all of its holdings; that it can no longer afford to hold on to the land. He further felt that the only possible use of the property was low density. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the location of a curb cut for access to any development on the site. Mr. Palin cited a remnant piece elsewhere in the City where this had been done effectively. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: There would be no safe access to any type of development that might be constructed on the site. AYES:' Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.7 (Density Bonus Provisions) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 10 Secretary Palin informed the Commission that this was an administrative action before them. He went on to say that the Government Code requires that, if a developer agrees to provide affordable housing, you must grant him an increase in density or some other incentive. Also, by having this policy it would allow the City to grant a density bonus to exceed the General Plan designation on a particular property without going through the amendment process on each project. Commissioner Winchell asked if staff had included the information that was added by the Planning Commission when this was discussed about two years ago. Staff assured the Commission that this was done. Commissioners briefly discussed the ramifications of their decision on an up-coming agenda item, a project request by the Huntington Breakers company. Tom Tincher underscored the need for this vehicle in the redevelopment process. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, AREA 2.7, DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS, OF LUE 82-1, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OVERALL APPROVAL OF LUE NO. 82-1: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1, AS ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTES, BE APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE APPROVAL OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1299. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company A request to rezone 1.52 acres of property from R2-01-PD and R2-0-PD-CD to R5-01-CD (Office Professional combined with oil production, Civic District). The property is located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie, representing the appli- cant, made a brief statement in favor of granting the zone change. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1 H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 11 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with existing and proposed development on surrounding properties. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed redesigna- tion of the subject property to Office/Professional in the City's General Plan, being processed concurrently with this zone change. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: M.D. Janes Company 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 (Medium Density Residential District combined with oil production). The public hearing on this item was opened and closed at the November 17, 1982 meeting. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed zone change is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation which is open space. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company A request to rezone property located generally on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues, from R2 to M1-A-O, (Restricted Manufacturing combined with oil production. The public hearing was reopened. Seeing no one came forward to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The Ml-A-O zoning is consistent with the recommended industrial H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 12 land use designation in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. Adding the "0" suffix to the existing R2 zoning would be inconsistent with the recommended land use. 2. The surrounding land uses are predominantly industrial. Rezoning the site to Light Industrial with Oil Production would be consis- tent with the surrounding land uses; i.e., Cambro Manufacturing Plan and the City water facility. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 (Continued from 11-16-82) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 13.1 net acres of property located generally on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues, from R2 to (Q)Ml-A (Qualified Restricted Manufacturing District). The public hearing was reopened. Dick Hammond, speaking for the Cambro Manufacturing Company, stated that he felt the concerns raised by surrounding residents at the public hearing on November 17th were satisfied. Bill Campbell, owner of Cambro, also addressed the Com- mission. They both favored a M1 zoning on the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed briefly the wording of the qualifying condi- tions. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The (Q)MI-A zoning is consistent with the recommended general industrial land use designation in Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. 2. Rezoning the site to (Q)M1-A would be consistent with the sur- rounding uses; e.g., Cambro Manufacturing plant and the City water facility. 3. The Ml-A District is a more restrictive zoning than Ml. It re- quires more landscaping, screening of outdoor storage, and pro- hibits certain types of building materials. The Ml-A is designed to provide for limited manufacturing facilities that are compatible with surrounding areas. In this particular case, there are resi- dential developments adjacent to the project site; therefore, an M1-A zoning would help ensure compatibility of future industrial H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 13 development with these existing residential areas. The conditions attached to the base district with the (Q) designation, would further ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential. CONDITIONS UNDER THE "Q" SUFFIX: 1. A conditional use permit application shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire project prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Development on the site shall include measures such as increased setbacks, orientation of buildings away from residential develop- ment, noise abatement, and landscaped buffers to mitigate any adverse impact on adjacent residential development. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Harbor Beach Club and Marina A request to change the zoning on property located on the north side of Warner between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes, from ROS District to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan by amending Article 930 of the ordinance code via Code Amendment No. 82-12. The public hearing was opened and closed at the November 16, 1982 meeting. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed zone change and code amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation which is open space. (NOTE: Commissioners Paone and Higgins stated for the record that, in order to comply with the LUE, Area 2.4 denial, they must vote for a denial of the zone change and code amendment, however, they were in favor of granting the LUE request.) AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 (Continued from 11-16-82) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone property located at Banning and Magnolia, from M1-A to either R1 (Low Density Residential) or Rl-PD (Low Density H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 14 Residential District with Planned Development suffix). The public hearing was reopened due to the fact that the Rl-PD alternative was re -advertised. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Staff informed the Commission that those persons whose names appeared on the petition submitted earlier in the year when this zone change was tabled, were notified of the public hearing. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed zone change is not in conformance with the General Plan. 2. Due to the location of the site in a designated flood hazard area, it is felt that residential zoning would be an improper use of the property. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 (Continued from 11-16-82) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to permit a change of zone from R4-0 to R4-29-0 (High Den- sity Residential combined with oil production having 29 units per acre on 10 acres) and R3-17-0 (Medium High Density Residential combined with oil production and having 17 units per acre) on approximately 9 acres of property located generally at the proposed southwesterly ex- tension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future alignment of 38th St. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke in favor of the pro- posed zone change. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. A change of zone from R4-0 to R4-29-0 and R3-17-0 on the subject property is consistent with the General Plan land use designation which is high density residential. 2. The proposed zone change from R4-0 and R4-29-0 and R3-17-0 will be compatible with surrounding land uses, which include oil pro- duction and vacant land. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 15 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65/USE PERMIT NO. 82-44/NEGATIVE DE- CLARATION NO. 82-41 (Referred by the BZA) Applicant: Huntington Breakers Limited A request to allow a reduction in the front yard setback; 25% compact parking; a reduction in the minimum square footage of the one -bedroom units; and a five foot increase to the permitted building height. The use permit requests permission to construct a 342-unit apartment complex on property located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 1300 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. Tom Tincher of staff gave a brief summary on information relating to downtown redevelopment activity and the redevelopment program in general. The public hearing was opened. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Dan Young stated that the apartment complex proposed fills an impor- tant need in the City for affordable housing, however, to try to achieve this there needs to be incentives. He cited the rental vacancy rate in the City of Huntington Beach at only 1%, with overall vacancy in the County of Orange at 2%. He encouraged the Commission to grant the requests before them. Robert Moore, Jr., representing the Mills Land Company, was opposed to the project. He also felt that many issues were not addressed adequately regarding the creation of a wetlands, construction of bulkheads, etc.; issues that he felt should be addressed in an environmental impact report rather than a negative declaration. Gordon Smith of the Environmental Board for the City, stated the Board was not opposed to the project itself, however, it was concerned about endangered species and potential impact of the wetland. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked how this project relates to the Local Coastal Program. Staff informed him that the project was not located in the coastal zone, but was immediately adjacent to it. Commissioner Higgins had a concern about the project satisfying a condition of the redevelopment program. He felt that the general area was a "window to the City", and would be better utilized with a plan that would en- hance this "window". Further Commission discussion took place regard- ing the frontage road, scenic corridor requirements for landscaping, and the proposed railings and overall design of the plan. Tom Tincher re- minded the Commission that 81% of the project will sell at market -rate. Commissioner Winchell also questioned whether a negative declaration would be adequate on this project. Dick Harlow, representing the ap- plicant, addressed some of the questions that the Commission had, as- suring them that if the frontage road was approved, screening would be provided - whatever would satisfy the scenic requirements. He also felt that the negative declaration addresses the project adequately. He further stated that the Department of Fish and Game oversees all the plans for the area. Commissioners briefly discussed a possible condominium conversion "down the road". Some discussion took place regarding the possibility of high-rise on this site. Because of the late hour, the Commissioners moved for a continuance with the concur- rence of the applicant. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 82-41, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 82-65 AND USE PERMIT 82-44 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1982, WITH CONCURRENCE BY THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 16 AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-10 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment to Section 9332 of the Ordinance Code relating to game arcades that specifies additional locational criteria. Staff had no further information to add. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-10 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11716 (REVISED)/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-25 (Continued from 10-19-82) Applicant: The Robert P. Warmington Company Engineer: J. P. Kapp and Associates A request to permit the development of a 21-lot planned residential development on 5.152 acres of property located at the southern terminus of Countess Drive approximately 2 mile south of Edinger Avenue. The applicant requested another continuance to the December 21, 1982 meeting. Chairman Paone stated that he would be abstaining from voting on the matter. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11716 (REVISED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-25 WERE CONTINUED PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE DECEMBER 21, 1982 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 82-2 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Primo Market A request to permit the extended use of a nonconforming roof sign on property located on the northwest side of Main Street, south of Ellis Avenue in the Five Points Shopping Center. 1 -1 H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 17 On September 8, the Planning Commission continued this request in order to receive authorization from the property owner concurring with applicant. This letter was received and dated November 3, 1982. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 82-2 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Planning Commission will allow the continued use of the noncon- forming sign for a period of two years. At the conclusion of the two-year period, the sign shall be made to conform to all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON DECEMBER 6, 1982: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the December 6, 1982 City Council meeting for the Commission's information. He stated that the Council sustained the Commission's denial on Special Sign Permit No. 82-5 located on the southeast corner of Magnolia and Gar- field. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Mirjahangir requested that staff prepare a time -table of up -coming agenda items. Commissioner Schumacher requested that staff list the reasons the Commission voted against the staff's proposal on Zone Change No. 82-10. Commissioner Wi.nchell asked staff to secure two publications from B.I.A. ITEMS DISTRIBUTED: Two letters were received and distributed to the Commissioners from Leonard Wright. One subject was dealing with the noise ordinance, the other was regarding miscellaneous issues. H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 A.M. to the next regular meeting of December 21, 1982. Tim Paone, Chairman 1