Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-03ii MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000.Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE AMENDED MINUTES OF THE- MEETING.OF MARCH-20, 1984, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 84-2 AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 84-3, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL'COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR.AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT. NO. •83-73 *(Cont. from March .20, 1984) Applicant: Donald Perry To permit an addition to a single-family dwelling located on the west side of Second Street 150 feet south*of orange Avenue. Mike Adams reported that additiona•l'plans submitted by the applicant for the meeting of March 20 had not been received in time to be discussed at that meeting., The plan still shows residential in relationship to commercial in excess of what is outlined in the Downtown Specific Plan, which proposes one- third office at a minimum and two-thirds residential at a Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, ' 1984 Page 2 maximum. The required parking under the Plan would calculate at five parking spaces;.applicant is showing four spaces. The plan also:presents-•a:possibility,,,for'later_conversion into multi- family units. Staff is recommending either denial or a continu- ance to attempt to reach a compromise between applicant and the Redevelopment -Agency. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Perry -'addressed the Commission to express -the opinion that a public hearing is not the proper forum to work''out the problems on his proposal and asked for a meeting during normal business hours. �He-saidt=that he had not been contacted by -'staff in regard to the continuance or rejection of his submitted plans and asked to meet with, -staff and the Redevelopment Agency to expedite a decision..on' his project. Staff responded to.:say that -the communi- cation difficulties cited by Mr. Perry will be rectified. Brief discussion took place, and applicant and the Commission con- curred on a continuance to the meeting of April 17. ON MOTION.BY_.LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-74 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, TO ALLOW TIME..FOR_APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WITH THEiCONCURRENCE.-OF- THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:.'"- Higgins, Winchell, LIvengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mitiahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO.- 83-30 (Cont. from March 20, 1984) Applicant'- ,City 'of Huntington Beach A proposal -to add Section 9331(k) to the -Huntington Beach Ordinance .Code' to require a conditional use permit subject to certain develop- ment criteria ,for -:excavation of a land disposal site in the City. Staff reported that a request had been received for a continuance of this item. The public hearing was reopened. Staff advised that this action would permit public testimony to be taken at the next meeting and would suffice for re -advertising of the proposal. -- ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES:. None ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: None -2- 4-3-84 - P.C. I 1� Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 3 CONDITIONAI, USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 (Cont. from March 20, 1984) Applicant: Joseph J. Nigro To permit expansion of an existing health club located at 8907 Warner Avenue. A request for continuance has been received. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 WAS CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-11 Applicant: Falzon Construction Inc. To permit a second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling to encroach seven (7) feet into the required fifteen (15) foot front yard setback on property located at 16231 Typhoon Lane. Staff reported that the proposed second story is to be cantil- evered two feet beyond the garage wall, which would result in a total*encroaehment for the living quarters of seven (7) feet. The code requires fifteen (15) feet for a front setback, but allows a reduction to ten (10) feet for a side -entry garage. Staff is recommending denial. The public hearing was opened. Charles Falzon spoke in favor of the request. He presented slides to show other dwellings in the area developed in a sim- ilar fashion. He said that to develop the addition within the confines of the code would reduce the living area too greatly and that the addition would take away the "tract house` appearance of the -property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the pro- posal, and the -public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the floor plans, finished height of the structure, actual distance from the curb line, access into the proposed addition, and the code provisions to control bulk of structures close to streets. -3- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 4 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL-AND SECOND-BY'HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 84-11 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGSg BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The ,applicant has failed to demonstrate facts sufficient 'to justify .a _.finding of hardship' -fox the property. 2. Because of -the size, -configuration, shape, and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there'do not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the -land, buildings, or premises in- volved which do not apply generally to property or class of uses in. -,the same district. - 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regu- lariestablished setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. =1 4. The proposed structure will-- not be'co'mpatible with adjacent properties: 5. The visual impact of a'23-arid 1/2 foot high structure at an eight foot setback would''be detrimental to the integrity and intent of the"ordinance code, which establishes the maximum height,"of a structure at a 10-foot setback at 15 feet. 6. Approval of this request would set a precedent for the eight foot front yard which would result from granting the'condi- tional exception.'. - AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Mirjahangir ABSENT: ' -_ None ._ . ABSTAIN: None .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-02 Applicant:- Alltrans ' A request to allow an additional commercial use within a mixed use development and to exceed the percentage -allowed for such com- mercial' -use on"property located east of Gothard Street -approxi- mately 750 feet south of Heil Avenue. .Staff reported -that the applicant has -foot -been able to=supply the required information and -has requested additional time,to- submit said material. Readvertising'of-the project will'be nec- .essary at the time of its next hearing. -4- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page* 5 ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DEFERRED ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-7 AND CONDI- TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-02 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICATION FOR THESE ITEMS IS COMPLETED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT:' None ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1/EIR NO. 83-3/EIR 83-4/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-53 (ZC 83-10 AND PREZONE CHANGE 83-11) This request includes the following items: Area Redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa 2:1 Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control District's Winters - burg Channel and a point approximately 1,400 feet south of Graham Street from Planning Reserve to Low Density Residential; to prezone the same property Low Density Residential (Rl District). Area Redesignate 3.41 acres located at the southwest corner of 2.2 Garfield Avenue and,Bushard Street from Low Density Resi- dential to General Commercial and to rezone the property from Office Professional (R5) to Community Business (C2) District. Area Redesignate 3.61 acres located'at the southwest corner of 2.3 Gothard Street and Center Drive from Public, Quasi -Public, Institutional to General Commercial. Commissioner Erskine announced that he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting on Item 2.1, the consideration of the Graham Street property. Staff planner Chuck Clark outlined the various proposals and their accompanying environmental documentation and zone change -requests for the information of the Commission. It was the consensus_ of the Commission to proceed with discussion of the proposed `element amendment item by item. ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 Howard Zelefsky reviewed the procedural steps for the prepara- tion of the EIR for the Fieldstone project at the end of Graham Street, Thomas Miner, Lynette Cervantes, Steve Nelson, and Michael McGaughey, representing Van Dell & Associates, were present at the meeting. Thomas Minor, project manager for the -environ- mental impact report, spoke briefly to describe the preparation of the document. , -5- 4-3-84 - P,C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 6 Commissioner -Porter expressed the opinion that the report directs itself, to the conceptual stage of development as opposed to going into the development phase. Mr.'Miner pointed out that the EIR looks beyond the initial review steps to more detailed plans for implementation of the mitigation measures suggested in the docu- ment, saying this is appropriate because of the uncertainty asso- ciated with the plans for the Bolsa Chica area and also because final. development plans for this specific.project will be avail- able only after they progress beyond the current stage. He also stated that the question of.how.this project will fit into -the County's Locai"Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica has'been con- sidered and it is his belief that the project will not foreclose any of the options under study by the County. The public hearing on Environmental Impact Report 83-3 and Area of Concern 2.1=6f Land Use -Element Amendment No: 84-1 was opened. Andy Durham, representing the applicant, said that he felt the consultant's had done a good job in evaluating the proposal and offered to respond to any questions the Commission might have. Terry Dolton,''17982-Shoreham Lane, addressed the Commission to say that this property is part of the larger Bolsa Chica and it should be considered as such. He pointed out that the report has not addressed the "no project" alternative; that it has not spoken to matters of public safety and welfare such as the percolation factor and,possible public liability for flooding and seismic acti- vities; that the,project is subject to pending litigation at the present time; that first consideration should have been given to the restoration of wildlife -areas and the alignment of the linear park;. and,that the site has been used as a dump over past years. He'urged that concrete -information be made available on those items prior to any approval at -this stage,. Rhoda Martyn, past president•of-.Los Amigos:De Bolsa Chica, spoke to urge rejection of both the environmental impact report and the Graham Place -proposal. She said that,the area in question has been identified as a.wetland,although badly abused by the dumping of dredging materials and subsequent ploughing and discing by Signal. Citing elevations in the area_ - which do not coincide with th6se discussed in the EIR,:drainage problems due to undersized drainage -,channels and pumps which are not functioning at capacity, potential public service costs, and the unanimity of opinion among both private and public agencies that this is "piecemeal planning" which if accepted will preclude all other options, Ms. Mar.tyn.concluded that_the EIR is not consistent with,the County's plan, does not adequately address the -relationship of this project to the larger project and should, therefore, be rejected. Bud Fain ;.17706 Gainsford Lane, ---chairman of the local homeowners' association, addressed the Commission in favor,of the project. He refuted the claim of piecemeal planning, saying that the project -6- 4-3-84 - P.C. 11 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 7 only represents the completion of the tract in which he lives (The Landing), promised when the residents purchased their homes there. He stated that the residents consider the area a health and safety hazard in the condition in which it is at present with trash, dumping, noise, dirt, and bikers present- ing undesirable elements for the neighborhood. Mr. Fain also stated that no flooding occurred during last year's heavy rains and the drainage in their area actually is very good.He closed by stating that the 42 acres under consideration does not in any way resemble the rest of the Bolsa Chica and it should not be classed as a part of that larger area. Darlene Frost, project manager for Signal Corporation, informed the Commission that her company's overriding concern is that the development of the Graham Place property should occur in a manner compatible with the Orange County General Plan and Local Coastal Program, indicating that numerous technical issues of drainage, tidal barriers, road alignments, and habitat restora- tion demonstrate the intricate relationship of the parcel with the entire Bolsa Chica. Given the recent progress toward a certifiable LCP Ms. Frost characterized the present proposal as piecemeal' and premature and asked that the Commission con- sider a holistic approach to the Bolsa Chica and not approve the EIR at this time. Robert Ameeti, 17661 Falkirk Lane, expressed the opinion that the project is really two separate areas - the single-family project adjacent to The Landing and the area to the right closer to the ocean which is going to be developed with town - homes. Michael Knapp, 17692 Gainsford Lane, addressed the Commission to urge a decision in favor of the project and the EIR. He pointed out that the area cannot be considered an aesthetically pleasing visual aspect or one which could be considered worth conserving and addressed again the fact that the proposal is merely the promised continuation of -Tract 8630 planned since 1976. He spoke to the matter of a proposed desilting basin in the County's plan which is not included in the plan under dis- cussion, noting that the County had added the basin only in its resubmittal of its plan in December of 1983. He questioned the desirability of a desilting basin placed adjacent'to resi- dential units without any buffering and pointed out that the project proposed is -at a density consistent with that shown in the County's plan. Floyd Belsito, 17111 Beach Boulevard, Suite 208, spoke to support the proposal: He noted the fact that present residents in the neighboring tracts are living under the same seismic and flood conditions applicable to the proposed development, conditions that were perhaps outweighed by the excellent loca- tion, proximity to the beach, and the fine housing opportunity. -7- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page ', 8- , Robert F. Gremel, 15621 Selkirk Drive,,spoke as a homeowner in the area east of Graham Street. He expressed concern - about the nature of the -proposed development near his side of Graham, say- ing that the developer's suggestion that high -cost duplexes or triplexes be built was, unfortunately, not an obligation. He said he could support the project if a row of single-family homes were to be built along Berkshire adjacent to the California Classic development to preserve the nature of that single-family neighborhood and.if Fieldstone would stipulate to not building structures which would be conducive to rentals or double occu- pancy by two or more owners. Bill Parker,_17882 Falcon Circle, -objected to -the proposal -be- cause of the traffic congestion which would be caused --by the single entrance into the complex. Richard Harlow, consultant to Fieldstone, stated that he feels. the EIR has fairly evaluated the -environmental concerns; however, many of the -issues addressed here have brought the•'general plan amendment and the zone change into the di-scussion on -the -report. He asked -the -Commission to make 'that distinction and to realize that many of the issues put forward -are -more appropriately dis- cussed at -the implementation level. Although -Fieldstone does - consider their 42 acres a separate parcel and a separate planning issue, they stand ready to work with the County, City, and with Signal to develop -in a comprehensive'manner.- There were -no other persons to speak -for or against'the environ- mental impact -report ► and -the -public hearing was closed. Commissioner-Livengood presented several questions'tostaff'-and received the following responses-: Biological assessments and other documents requested by the Coastal Commission have been forwarded; the-consultant's-.report'to be prepared by Woodward Clyde has .not -been' received- and- reviewed by' staff (Howard- -Zelef- sky indicated -that it has not`as yet been completed); and the flood plain requirements mandate that a structure be elevated above the 100-year flood level plus one foot. -Mr.'-Livengood-'also-suggested that barriers be installed'so that'vehicles could not access the subject property from Graham Street', thereby alleviating the dumping -problem. Mr. Livengood then asked the legal counsel, Art De La.Loza, if an approval action on this EIR would prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a -certifiable LCP for the Bolsa Chica. Mr. De-La'Loza -replied-that since there are other agencies that need to make certain approvals on -the -proposal and that'since the applicant.is aware of those other -agencies there should be'no reasonable detrimental reliance on the part of the applicant be- cause of -the -Commission's action. He had -previously instructed the Commission that part of any approval action on its part must -8- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, '1984 Page 9 be an affirmative finding that all provisions mentioned in Public Resources Code, Section 21100, have been met by the EIR. Absent the Commission's satisfaction that all short - and long=term objectives of the Code have been met no approval action could be taken. Another possibility pointed out by legal counsel was that the person preparing the environmental document could address the issues brought up at this meeting and either resolve them or include a statement in the docu- ment saying that these certain issues are not significant and outlining why.they do not significantly impact the pro- ject and therefore do not need to be discussed in detail. Extensive discussion followed among Commission members, in- cluding the focus of the document on the subject project only without considering the entire Bolsa Chica, the elevations, flood hazard possibility, geological and biological data, the road system to serve the area, and the possibility of an ocean cut with resultant risk of tidal surge and downstream inundation. Commissioners Winchell and Porter expressed the consensus of the Commission that the report does not ad- equately respond to the issues raised by other public agencies nor does it address the final plan for the Bolsa Chica. Procedural steps were reviewed with legal counsel and staff. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE THIS TO A DATE TO BE AGREED UPON BY THE COMMISSION AND FIND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 83-3 INADEQUATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The document does not meet the requirements of S. 15006 of the State EIR Guidelines outlining the basic purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that: a. A basic purpose is to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; b. The document should attempt to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives and mitigating measures when a governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. 2. The document has not responded to the comment of the State Department of Fish and Game that specific.mitigation measures have not been provided throughout the document. The absence of information in the document, incomplete identification of impacts, the lack of positive mitiga- tion measures, plus further complications due to the un- known LCP status contribute to the inadequacy of this document. 3. The EIR does not adequately address the concerns of two State agencies, one federal agency, and the major land- -9- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 10 owner in the area that there are not adequate mitigating measures to protect not only the project but the surround- ing areas.- 4. The report makes continual reference to the County's Local Coastal Plan that is not certified, basing important concerns such as traffic, minimal impacts on Graham on'a major arterial that may never be built. 5. The EIR should not be approved until the findings of geotech-- nical studies on.faulting, liquefaction, and subsidence pre- pared at the request of Orange County by Woodward Clyde Con- sultants are available, based on their full reports document- ing this work. 6. The EIR as written does not use facts and continually states If I . will be addressed -at subsequent levels of review." 7. Adequate mitigation measures are not detailed to protect the project,from the ambitious oil redevelopment program by Aininoil of its North Bolsa lease. 8. All material facts are not addressed in the report, and there is no listing in the report'of items which are found not to significantly impact the project, as outlined by legal counsel earlier. 9. The scope and intent of environmental information.which is required,by the public agencies -responding to the draft EIR is not present in this document. Chairman Porter ,inquired how the maker of the motion wished to handle the.date=to.which the'item would be continued; Commissioner Livengood:stated that he will delete the reference -to a date and make it`under a separate motion._ Chairman Porter thereupon clarified the motion on the floor as . a motion to find EIR 83-3 inadequate based on the preceding findings. THE MOTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE FOR CONTINUANCE DELETED WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood,;Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine ON MOTION BY,LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO..83=3._WAS CONTINUED TO THE.MEETIYG OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: rrl0-- 4t-3-84 ,- P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 11 AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine Dick Harlow questioned the necessity for this continuance, asking if the EIR could not be corrected and re -advertised for an earlier hearing. Florence Webb suggested that this Area of Concern could be broken away from the present land use amend- ment and processed separately as Amendment 84-2. The Commis- sion, however, indicated that it would be difficult to improve on the date because the forthcoming Coastal Conservancy plan is mandated for the end of June and it should be incorpor- ated into this document. Commissioner Livengood said that his motion stands as made. He noted that evaluation of the environmental document need not be exhaustive but it is to be just in the light of what is reasonably feasible. The courts have looked for a good faith effort and full disclosure; his feeling is that the key word is "full disclosure." He said we do not have that, and based on the testimony we have received we will not have it until the other plans are complete. Commissioner Schumacher indicated that she wished to change her vote on the denial of the EIR to a "no" vote. Legal counsel advised her that this was not possible but she could indicate for the record that intention. The Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00. Staff and legal counsel conferred as to further procedure. Art De La Loza recommended that in order to maintain a clear and accurate record and obtain maximum participation it might be best to consider each portion of the Land Use Element Amendment separately. Florence Webb recommended in light of the previ- ous action on the environmental impact report that Area of Concern 2.1 be opened and continued. Chairman Porter opened the public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 of the amendment. There were no persons to provide further input, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE ,MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine -11- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 12 . _ LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 - AREA OF CONCERN 2.2/EIR 874 Applicant: San Alto Development Company A request to redesignate 3.41 acres located at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and to rezone the same property from Office Professional' (R5) to Community Business (C2) District. The Commission briefly discussed the compatibility of the proposed commercial with surrounding residential uses and how such a project might be treated to attain compatibility. Mike Adams responded that a "Q" designation on the zone change would allow staff to im- pose conditions relating to landscaping, setbacks, etc. to any specific project when it is proposed. The fiscal impact of the amendment was also reviewed, as well as -the viability of a small commercial development at this location and the possible dilution of the market for existing commercial facilities. The public hearing on Area 2.2 of Land Use Element Amendment 84-1 and EIR 8374 was opened. Marilyn Lugaro, 19082 Mathew Circle, submitted a petition from neighboring property owners in opposition to the proposals. Noting existing noise problems from an adjacent General Telephone Company, she protested the addition of any small shopping center to this location. Richard -Parks, 19062 Hillsboro Circle, indicated that the neighbors realize that this particular property is underutilized; their con- cern is with the uncertainty of types of uses and impacts which will result from the change of designation and rezoning. Abraham and Joan Walker, 9371 Litchfield Drive, spoke to the safety and'welfare of the children living in the neitj.hborhood. They were concerned that the center not contain liquor stores or bars but that types of businesses go in that would be.of use and value to the immediate community. , Vera Harper spoke in support.of the proposal, saying that office professional or low density residential designations are not feasible on such a small parcel. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the building heights allowable under the proposed C2 designation, as well as the setbacks required between commercial and residential uses. Chairman Porter asked that the report be clarified (on Page 13 relating to conditions which could be applied to a commercial development) to more accurately.reflect what the Commission is authorized to impose under the existing applications. Staff will correct the document. -12- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April-3, 1984 Page 13 In response to questioning from Commissioner Mirjahangir, the applicant indicated that he has immediate plans to proceed with construction of the single -story shopping center if his requests are approved. He added that'his plans call for a 20- .foot setback from adjoining residential units. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-4 AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS APPROVED AS ADEQUATE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT 84-1 BE DENIED AND THE SUBJECT AREA REMAIN AS IT IS PRESENTLY DESIGNATED ON THE GENERAL PLAN (LOW DENSITY RESIDEN- TIAL) BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 - AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-53 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to redesignate 3.61 acres located at the southeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive from Public, Quasi - Public, Institutional to General Commercial. Charles Clark reported that the purpose of this amendment is to bring the General Plan designation on the property into conformance with its zoning and with the existing use. The public hearing was opened; no one was present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 83-53 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -13- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 14 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. 84-1, AREA OF CONCERN 2.3, BE APPROVED AND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGED TO GENERAL COMMER- CIAL, BY THE'FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES:_ Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE RESOLUTION NO. 1317, ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 84-1 WITH THE DELETION OF AREAS OF CONCERN 2.1 AND 2.2, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES:, None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-10 Applicant: San Alto Development Co. A request to rezone approximately 2.21 acres from R5 (Office Pro- fessional) to C2 (Community Business) District located on the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street (in conjunc- tion with LUE 84-1, Area 2.2) The Commission considered this zone change request in light of its'prior action on Area of Concern 2.2 of LUE 84-1. The public hearing was opened. By reference, the testimony given by the public relative to -Area of Concern 2.2 was adopted. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-10 WAS DENIED -BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A ZONE CHANGE TO R1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO BRING THE ZONING INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -14= 4-3-84 - P.C. 1•1J,1111L.C.7? n.n. rianning commission April 3, 1984 Page 15 ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-11 (In conjunction with LUE 84-1/ Area 2.1) Applicant: The Fieldstone Company A request to prezone 42.4 acres of property to Rl (Low Density Residential) located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control District Wintersburg Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street. The Commission considered this zone change request in light of its prior action on Area of Concern 2.1 of LUE 84-1. The public hearing was opened. By reference, the testimony given by the public relative to Area of Concern 2.1 was adopted. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-11 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to amend the ordinance code by amending Sections 9310.1 and 936-.1 and adding a new Article 930 establishing standards and guidelines for conversion of apartments to resi- dential condominiums, stock cooperatives, or community apart- ments. Staff has requested a continuance on this item. The public hearing was opened. There were no persons present to address the matter, and the public hearing was left open. In the ensuing discussion staff was asked to provide informa- tion on the following items: Number of existing rental units in the City; vacancy factors; how much of our rental stock it would be desirable to give up to conversions; information on how other municipalities handle this matter; and input from the Attorney's office as to whether or not conversions can be tied to a vacancy factor. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 1, 1984 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -15- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, '1984 Page 16 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livegood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-5/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11769/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-4 Applicant: Lindborg-Dahl Investors To permit the subdivision of land into 15 lots for the construc- tion of single-family dwellings on property located on the south side of -Ellis Avenue approximately 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street. MikeAdams reported that, although the staff is requesting a con- tinuance in order to try to obtain a 10-acre conceptual plan to assure access to the rear five acres immediately adjacent to the subject site, concurrence has not been obtained from the appli- cant. David Dahl, applicant, addressed the Commission to say that he would agree to a continuance for two weeks to allow time to dis- cuss the problem with the adjacent landowner. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE C.U.P. 84-5, TT 11769, AND ND 84-4 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, TO PERMIT STAFF TO PREPARE A 10-ACRE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WITH THE CONCUR- RENCE OF THE APPLICANT,,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-2 Applicant: Emergicenter A request to permit the continued use of a nonconforming roof sign located on -the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 400 feet south of Ellis Avenue (18583 Beach Boulevard). Mike Adams reported that the Emergicenter will use half of the existing sign for its business; the remaining half of the sign space will be reserved for another tenant at a later date. Slides of the project were shown. Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, indicated their agreement with the conditions of approval suggested in the staff report. -16- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 4, 1984 Page 17 The Commission reviewed the proposal. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-2 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file an insurance bond in the amount of $1,500 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign code after two years from the date of approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said sign is located and remove said sign, and the cost of removal shall be summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Future sign faces to be placed in the unused portion of the existing rooftop sign shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services and sub- ject to the conditions contained therein. 3. The site plan and elevations received and dated March 8, 1984 shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 82-36 Applicant: Huntington Beach Police Department A request to establish a permanent police heliport on the west side of Gothard Street north of Ellis Avenue. Mike Adams reported that the Master Plan Study for the heliport has now been received. The Commission reviewed its prior action and the alternatives suggested by staff -in the staff report. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO TAKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-36 OFF THE TABLE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -17- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 18 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL DETERMINED TO SET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-8 LARATION 82-36 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE APRIL WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS TO STAFF, BY THE DIRECTIONS: THE COMMISSION AND NEGATIVE DEC- 17, 1984 MEETING FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. • Notice of public hearing shall be sent to all properties within a 2,000 foot radius of the subject site. 2. The issues of concern expressed by the Planning Commission at its March 20, 1984 hearing shall be used as a checklist for information that is needed. 3. The discussion and concerns as discussed at the City Council meeting of April 2 shall be incorporated into any plans or information submitted to the Commission for the public hearing. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: None Pending Items: The Commission reviewed the information submitted by staff on the pending item list. Commissioner Erskine asked for an explanation of the State Parks and Recreation's -negative reaction to the proposal for the basketball court. Mr. Adams in- dicated that a bad experience -last year with a recreation facility at that location and complaints from residents of the condominium adjacent seemed to be the cause. At the end of the discussion, staff was directed to contact both Community Services and the homeowners to see if some.compromise can be worked out and the area put to some use. Mr. Adams pointed out that any proposal would still require approval from the State agency. Commissioner Livengood asked that the possibility of putting barri- cades up at the end of Graham Street be added to the pending list. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bruce Bartels, 18472 Carnaby Lane, quire if any consideration could be for the proposed police heliport. COMMISSION ITEMS: addressed the Commission to in - given to an alternate site Commissioner Livengood announced that he will be absent from the meeting of April 17, 1984. 1 1* -18- 4-3-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 3, 1984 Page 19 Commissioner Schumacher requested that staff investigate what appears to be dumping taking place on the west side of Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue. Commissioner Porter discussed whether or not the street plan indicated in the information submitted represents the recommended alignment in the Downtown and asked that the Commission be kept closely advised of what is taking place as far as street plans are concerned. Staff advised that there will be a workshop on the Downtown area next Saturday and that the Planning Commis- sion is welcome to attend. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 2, 1984 for the Commission's information. He also invited the Commission to attend a special study session of the City Council next Monday evening, April 9, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in Room B-.8. This meeting will address the Downtown Implementa- tion Strategy and the Housing Opportunities and Relocation Element. He also announced that Tom Tincher of the Redevelopment office will submit redevelopment information to the Commission. There was no further business, and the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. James W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, rman :df -19- 4-3-84 - P.C.