Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-15APPROVED AS CORRECTED ON 3-15-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: C014MISSIONERS ABSENT: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir Higgins, Schumacher An election of chairman was held to determine a successor to the vacancy left by Tim Paone who resigned. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR NOMINATING MARC PORTER FOR THE OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN. MR. PORTER WAS ELECTED CHAIR- MAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Porter Chairman Porter entertained a motion for a nomination for Vice Chairman. Seeing there was no motion, he continued the election of Vice Chairman to the next meeting to be held on March 1, 1983. Mr. Palin introduced the recently appointed commissioner, John Erskine, to the other commissioners. Mr. Erskine was appointed by Councilman McAllister to fill the vacancy left by Tim Paone. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Livengood pulled Item A-2 off the consent calendar to be considered separately. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, THE REMAINING CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEB- RUARY 1, 1111, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Erskine H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 2 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, ITEM A-2, SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA - RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL POSTPONEMENT OF STAFF WORK ON THE PLAN, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Erskine ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Cynthia Doe, representing Enedina Aranda, voiced objection to the City's handling of the Talbert/Beach Redevelopment Project. She stated that there was a lack of communication between the City and Mrs. Aranda who is being relocated for the benefit of the redevelopment project. The Chairman referred them to the appropriate legislative body, which is the Redevelopment Agency. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-1 Applicant: Norbert Dall, Agent for Master Properties No. 9, Limited A request to rezone 9+ acres of property located at the northwest cor- ner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street, from R3 to R4-30, High Density Residential District, maximum 30 units per acre. Chairman Porter asked that the next regular agenda item (Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879) which was continued from the last meeting, also be considered at this time. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-31/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11879 Subdivider: Master Properties No. 9, Ltd. Engineer: Dudley H. Clark and Associates A request to convert an existing 286 unit apartment complex to a 245 unit planned residential development, also located at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street. Jim Barnes gave a brief overview of the two agenda items and called attention to the fact that additional suggested findings for denial were distributed to the Commissioners. Commissioners asked for clari- fication of the history of zoning on the subject site, vehicular access, open space relating to the parking structure and landscaping. The public hearing was opened. Norbert Dall, the applicant, spoke at length about the proposed project and gave a slide presentation of the existing and proposed complex. He emphasized the fact that 75% of the units will be affordable (between $80,000 to $100,000). He also address bedrooms per unit, site coverage, setbacks, building separation, ve- hicular access and open space requirements. He pointed out that the Hess Circle condo conversion project was recently approved by the Plan- ning Commission; that the Breakers apartment project will replace his H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 3 proposed conversion; and that the possibility exists that even after the complex is converted, it may return to rental by individual owners. He further stated that the zoning request is an integral part of the overall request, so that the project will comply with the present zoning laws relating to density. The Commissioners received a letter from the Fair Housing Council of Orange County in response to the proposed con- version which stated that the current vacancy rate is less than 1.8% in Orange County. Commissioner Livengood asked the applicant to respond to that letter. Mr. Dall stated that he found the writer of the letter to be unaware of the details of the proposed conversion. He stated that nowhere in Article 936 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, does it address the affordable housing program - that the owner suggested the 75% affordable housing on the project. He also stated that as far as tenant assistance was concerned, one month's rent plus moving expenses up to $500 will be paid, except for senior citizens (there will be no ceiling on compensation to senior citizens). He further stated that although the letter from Fair Housing Council made reference to a short- age of three bedroom units, his project has eight units with three bed- rooms. Mr. Dall agreed to a condition to notify tenants who move in after the date of approval to convert, that they will not be entitled to relocation benefits. Gavin James of R & B Property Management, also spoke in favor of the proposed zone change, conditional use permit with a special permit and tentative tract. Esther Friedman and John Murray, tenants in the present apartment complex, spoke in opposition to the applications. Mr. Murray felt that there would not be sufficient com- pensation with regard to the present location having an excellent school district. He also felt that improvement should be made to correct the absence of concrete under the floor in some units. Ms. Friedman, a tenant for the past nine years, felt that the price of the "affordable" units at $80,000 to $100,000 were out of her price range and she would, there- fore, be forced to relocate. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked staff for an explanation of the Villa Warner apartments going stock -cooperative. Mr. Palin stated that that conversion to stock -cooperative was made without review by the City. Commissioner Livengood was concerned about the laundry facilities in that complex, whether or not the tenants had laundry facilities in the units, or if they had to go out of the unit to a central laundry room. He further questioned the applicant regarding the tenants in the units that front Warner and Edwards. Mr. Dall stated that those condominium owners will have to exit their units and walk to the laundry facilities. He further stated that where feasible, the units fronting Warner and Edwards could be redesigned to include indoor laundry hook-ups that could accommodate "smaller" washers and dryers. Commissioner Winchell questioned the applicant regarding the affordable units as to what would a person have to make as an annual income. Mr. Dall stated that they would have to make about $33,000 a year to qualify, but that the owner would be willing to carry back "paper" if the 10% down payment was a problem. Commissioner Winchell stated that although she is normally against con- dominium conversions because it does not benefit the majority of the public, she would be in favor of this particular conversion because of the deficiencies which exist at the apartment complex at the present time. H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 4 Commissioner Livengood felt that the applicant has "bent over backwards" to comply with City standards and agreed with Commissioner Winchell that the complex is in need of upgrading, and that he, therefore, is in favor of the applications. He further felt that staff should be directed to prepare conditions of approval. Some discussion took place on warrantees on appliances in the units. Commissioner Winchell gave a list of areas to incorporate into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mirjahangir was concerned with life and fire safety. Commissioner Erskine stated that he was surprised at the small turn out of tenants at the meeting. Some discussion took place regarding the tract map. The Commission con- sensus was that the conditions of approval were not firm enough and that a continuance was necessary on the conditional use permit and the tentative tract. Commissioner Livengood requested that staff noti- fy the two Commissioners who were not present, to hold on to the plans they received from staff. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-1, WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. R4-30 zoning on the site is necessary to legally accommodate the 245 unit planned residential development proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879. 2. Rezoning of the property to R4-30 is in compliance with the City's General Plan. AYES:' Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 82-31 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11879 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 1, 1983 MEETING, WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: , AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter called for a recess. The Commission resumed at 9:30 PM. (Draft) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 82-2 (Downtown Specific Plan) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A public hearing was held for the purpose of reviewing draft Environ- mental Impact Report No. 82-2 on the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 5 The Specific Plan will constitute the zoning for that portion of the coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. The plan area is bounded on the inland side by Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta. The public hearing was opened. Vince Noble, of Chevron U.S.A., stated that he felt the EIR did not address the oil related land uses in the plan area. Lance Jacot made the following statements: The EIR does not reference the 1976 hearings; are there any mitigation measures for the projected traffic impacts; what impacts are associated with the 26,000 trips on Lake Street shown on the circulation map; that the Specific Plan will increase population for 2,000-9,000 persons; that it will result in a loss of the existing beach -town atmosphere; what impact will the County experience as a result of air pollution generated by implementa- tion of the Plan; that the Plan proposes bringing additional population into an area of seismic hazard; that the Edison Company may experience difficulty serving electrical demand by the year 1984; that it seems un- likely that the Ultrasystems' analysis of public services is accurate; that the Plan will result in additional traffic being channeled into residential neighborhoods; that all unavoidable adverse impacts will be the result of the high intensity proposed in the Plan; and that on page 33 of the EIR, the document states that the boundary extends as far inland as Indianapolis Avenue. Gloria Hemsley stated that she was "overwhelmed" by the projected increased volume of traffic that will be traversing behind her house. She felt that not only the tract where she resides (Seacliff) will be affected, but also residents in the Beachwalk tract. She said that Goldenwest Street at least has two lanes, however, Lake Street and Main Street both have only one lane traveling each way. She stated it was "very sad" that she and others have to come before the Planning Commission continually to say they "do not want this". Leonard Wright submitted a written statement with his comments addressing the EIR. He proceeded to read these comments, which among other things, ad- dressed the fiscal impact model by Ultrasystems; the high intensity de- velopment not necessarily attracting rapid transit; a request for studies supporting a decrease in traffic as a result of mixed use districts; de- velopment as a result of the proposed zoning should be compared to exist- ing development; adverse impacts in terms of increased traffic in the Townlot area; Lake and 17th will experience inappropriate noise levels as a result of future development - mitigations presented on page 37 of the EIR are standard noise attenuation measures; smog and air pollution generated by the Plan; and that the area designated "4a" should be left as residential, that commercial is too great, the area between 3rd and Lake should be left residential, low density uses should be promoted in the beach as high intensity increases the congestion on major arterials and make beach access difficult. Faye Ogden felt that page 47 on adverse problems "says it all". She felt that Lake and Main do not have walls to absorb some of the noise and pollution; and that there are several schools on 14th Street where children's lives may be endangered by the increased traffic. The public hearing was closed. Commission Livengood asked staff what the revenue was based on that was used to figure the fiscal impact report. Staff stated that it was based on the income the City will get on property taxes and development H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 6 fees charged at the time of development. Commissioner Livengood also asked if the "uniqueness of the project" was taken into consideration, e.g. cost of widen streets, etc. He requested staff to come back with a "guestimate"and suggested that a market analysis and traffic circulation (moving people from the coast to the freeway) study be conducted. Discussion took place regarding the parking that would be lost on Pacific Coast Highway as a result of development. Staff stated that CalTrans would be responsible for that task. Brief discussion followed regarding traffic impacts. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING COM- MISSION INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to amend Article 945, C3, General Business District which will bring the parking requirements (Section 9456) into conformance with Article 979, Off -Street Parking. The amendment will also estab- lish provisions for an in -lieu fee to be paid to the City and/or a Parking Authority when off-street parking cannot be accommodated. Mr. Palin explained that on January 24, 1983, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2607, which became effective immediately and is only in effect for 45 days from the date of enactment. He stated that something needs to be "on the books" until certification of the Downtown Specific Plan and until the City has its permit authority returned from the Coastal Commission. He directed the Commissioners to the maps that were distributed showing the existing and proposed parking areas. Commissioners questioned the original need for an urgency ordinance to be passed by the City Council. Mr. Palin responded that historically the City allowed businesses in the downtown to lease parking spaces. He further explained that there was no one single cause for the emer- gency ordinance, but because of major renovations occurring in the down- town area without sufficient parking, there was an immediate need for the ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one was present to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. Commission Mirjahangir stated that he had difficulty supporting this code amendment - that he felt it was a temporary solution to a problem that needs a permanent solution. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 AS PRESENTED AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, AS FOLLOWS: II.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 7 AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Erskine ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 1, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter requested the secretary to advise the absent Commis- sioners of the continued item and listen to the tape so that they can vote on the item on March 1, 1983. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-2 Applicant: Church of Religious Science A request to permit the establishment of a church facility within an existing building in a shopping center located at the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street. The public hearing was opened. Speaking on behalf of the church was Norman Gilbert who was in favor of the application. Commissioners asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Gilbert stated the conditions were acceptable to him. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked if fire protection requirements were addressed in the conditions. Mr. Cooper stated that the fire protec- tion regulations would be routinely enforced at the time building per- mits are issued and need not be addressed in the conditions of approval. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed church facility conforms with the City's General Plan designation which is general commercial. 2. The proposed church facility is compatible with surrounding land uses which include a shopping center, offices, a high school and vacant land. 3. The proposed church facility substantially complies with all pro- visions contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in- cluding parking, landscaping, setbacks and will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community. li.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated January 14, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. All proposed future school programs such as extended pre-school, elementary or junior high, shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. 3. Signage or other means of identification for the proposed church facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission if the signage does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this condi- tional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws or conditions of approval. Such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES:" None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 Subdivider & Owner: City of Huntington Beach A request to subdivide ten existing 27 foot lots into nine 30 foot lots on approximately 1.04 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Alabama Street and Mmephis Avenue. L� 1 Although the tentative tract did not require a public hearing, the public was invited at this time to give testimony concerning the tract map. Seeing no one was present to address this item, the Chairman closed the time for public testimony, ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 1.04 gross acre site zoned Old - town Specific Plan District 2, is in compliance with the City's General Plan. 2. The City's General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. 3. The lot size, width, frontage, alley width and all other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision, are proposed to II.I3. Planning Commission February 15, 1-983 Page 9 be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative map received and dated February 11, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. The drainage for the subdivision shall be approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion con- trol both during and after construction of the project. 3. All vehicular access rights along Alabama Street and Memphis Avenue, except at the approved intersection of the private alley with Memphis Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 4. A chemical analysis as well as tests for physical properties of the soil on the subject property shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling constructed on the subject site. 5. The 20 foot alley identified on the tentative map shall be private and maintained by the adjacent property owners. This alley shall be constructed to City standards and a private maintenance agree- ment shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City which will require that the maintenance of this private alley be the responsibility of each of the nine property owners located with- in this subdivision. Said alleys shall be constructed with a rolled asphalt curb along the west side. A twenty (20) foot reciprocal drive easement shall be established and recorded at the rear of each parcel to provide for both vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress on the lots for use by other lots within the tract. These private alleys shall be posted as fire lanes and parking thereon prohibited. 6. All required fire hydrants, water systems, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems, shall be designed and installed in compliance with all City standard specifications and shall be part of the City's systems. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: City Council Action Taken At the February 7, 1983 Meeting Secretary Palin gave a brief rundown on action taken at the February 7, 1983 City Council meeting. He informed the Commissioners that the City Council only overruled one recommendation by the Planning Commis- sion which was on the Huntington Harbour plan. H.B. Planning Commission February 15, 1983 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin asked Commissioners Winchell, Livengood and Mirjahangir if the arrangements made for them for the League of Cities Conference were satisfactory. None of the Commissioners voiced any objections. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Porter requested staff to prepare a resolution commending Tim Paone for his service to the Planning Commission as a member and as a chairman. Commissioner Livengood had some concern about the steps that were taken by the City in communicating with the property owner in the Talbert/ Beach Redevelopment Project area. He felt that, compared to communica- tion with property owners in the downtown, that the same communication did not seem to exist. The steps taken by the City were briefly out- lined -by Art Folger who explained that, to date, no condemnation action has been initiated by the City. He further assured the Commissioners that the law states the City has to pay relocation of the displaced property owners and compensation for their property at fair market value. Also, Mr. Folger commented that there was a difference between the downtown redevelopment project and the Talbert/Beach project in that there are only two property owners involved with Talbert/Beach. ADJOURNMENT: Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. to the next regular meeting to be held on March 1,_1983. Marc Porter, Chairm 1