Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-15MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 - 6:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Higgins (6:55), Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine (6:40), Schumacher, Mirjahangir (6:20) Item A-4, revision to the minutes of the regular meeting of April 17, 1984, was pulled from the consent calendar for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CAL- ENDAR, CONSISTING: OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1984, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 84-7, AND REVISION TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1983, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Later in the meeting Item A-4 was acted upon as follows: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE REVISION TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -OF APRIL 17, 1984 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE': AYES: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Winchell,-Livengood ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 21, 1984 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to the ordinance code amending Sections 9310.0 and 9360.1 and adding a new Article 930 establishing standards and guidelines for conversion of apartments to residential condominiums, stock cooperatives, or community apartments. Jame's Barnes briefly reviewed the staff report and supplement to the staff report. He also pointed out the communication received this date from Norbert H. Dall & Associates pertaining to the pro- posed code amendment. The public hearing was reopened. Shirley Long addressed the Commission as a representative from the Board of Realtors. She asked that S. 9300.3, Fees Required, be restructured to apply to -the cost of processing applications, and questioned the strict nature of the development standards contained in the proposed ordinance, saying that they may restrict a great many properties from being able to convert. It was her position that the standards would inhibit provision of low/moderate ownership housing in the community and more reasonable construction standards were needed to increase the availability of low and moderate income housing in the City and to encourage ownership. Stephanie Dall, representing Norbert Dall & Associates, commended staff on its response to their prior concerns and reviewed addi- tional areas in which she thought clarification might be needed: 1) She felt that a cut-off point of any percentage in the vacancy rate -as a criterion. for permitting conversions would result in arbitrary discrimination against projects for which proposals might be submitted at an inopportune time, while permitting other projects filed at different times to convert. She proposed an alternative approach which would allow an applicant to propose a mitigation pro- gram in such instances and urged adoption of the change. 2) She recommended changes in the density bonus language to bring that section into conformity with Sections 9300.12 and 9300.12.1. 3) In the tenant assistance program Ms. Dall proposed that an average of the rent increase over the past two (2) years be the updated limit of assistance once the conversion process begins. Also, she felt that the word "contract" alone might be ambiguous and might be con- sidered not to apply to month -to -month rental agreements, suggesting that the words "month -to -month" be inserted in the terminology of the pertinent section. Dick Harlow spoke to make the following recommendations: 1) He asked that language be incorporated to acknowledge the fact that -2- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 3 original apartment construction was designed to a different set of standards and that the Commission when reviewing a con- version project take that into account; 2) He suggested that the density standards in the ordinance be consistent with those contained in the apartment standards; and 3) He concurred that approval of a conversion request based on a vacancy factor would be arbitrary and suggested that an objective be set to encourage home ownership and that criteria be used in evalua- ting an application. There were no other persons to speak in regard to the proposed ordinance, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the question raised by Ms. Long in re- gard to fees. Staff explained the premise behind its inclusion of the per -unit fee structure, saying that the staff time taken to process a larger project would be greater than that needed to process a smaller one and the object had been to relate costs as closely as possible to the actual time expended. Pro- pbsed change to the wording to strike the "per unit" fee and refer simply to a "processing fee" was discussed. Legal counsel Art Folger indicated that no fees may be charged which do not bear a reasonable relation to the actual costs incurred, but the law has permitted.additional fees which can be shown to be based on such a reasonable relationship. Also briefly discussed were park and recreation and library fees as they might relate to conversion projects. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RETAIN THE FEE WORDING AS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission reviewed the proposed changes contained in the staff report: S. 9300.6 - Compliance -with Title 17 of the'Municipal Code. Staff has determined that it can support the revision which would require that a condominium conversion project be subject to the Title 17 provisions which are in effect at the time the conver- sion is approved. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO APPROVAL THE STAFFS AMENDED VERSION OF 9300.6 AS OUTLINED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahanger NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -3- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 4 S. 9300.12.1 - Den.sity,Bonus or.equivalent incentive. Jim Barnes reported that the wording proposed for S.' 9300.12.1 by Norbert Dall follows almost verbatim the state legislation which became effective on January 1, 1984, and staff is recommending its in- clusion into the ordinance. Staff is, however, recommending one deviation from that wording: The legislation requires`+3.3 percent low and moderate income housing, and staff is'recommending that the ordinance require that at least half of that 33 percent be for low income housing salable only to people who qualify in that range. Staff noted 'that the information had been submitted only earlier in the day and time had not been available to review it. in detail. r ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED,.TO,APPROVE THE INTENT OF S. 9300.12.1 AS OUTLINED IN NORBERT DALLIS MEMO OF MAY 15, 1984, WITH THE PROVISO THAT HALF OF THE REQUIRED 33 PERCENT BE FOR LOW INCOME PERSONS, AND WITH THE DIRECTION_TO•STAFF TO REVIEW THE SECTION IN DEPTH AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH ANY REVISIONS IT MAY FEEL NECES- SARY, BY THE'FOLLOWING:STRAW VOTE AYES: Higgins;.Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: `None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None' S. 9300.10 -Development Standards, and 9300.12 - Special Permit. Chairman Porter noted that, if it is the intent of the Commission to adopt 9300.12:1 above, then these two subsections should also be amended to reflect that action. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT STAFF MAKE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS TO 9300.10 AND 9300.12 TO REFLECT -THE 'ADDITION 'OF S 9300:12.,l;..'BY ' THE 'FOLLOW- ING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, WihchellLivengood; Porte'r;'Erskine; Schumacher, I MirjaLngi:r , NOES: None ABSENT: None r ABSTAIN: None S. 9300.10:15 -.Private Accessway-Widths. Staff is recommending that the language be revised to state: "Accessways exceeding 150 feet -in length shall: -comply with Fire and Public Works standards." ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE ABOVE REVISION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -4- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 5 S. 9300.14 - Effect of Proposed Conversion on City's Housing Supply. Jim Barnes reported that staff is recommending that Paragraph A of this section be retained in the ordinance (as opposed to the position taken by Mr. Dall) because the impact of the displacement of tenants is a relevant issue which should be considered during processing of a proposed condominium project. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION SUPPORTED THE RETENTION OF THE LANGUAGE IN S. 9300.14, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S. 9300.19 - Vacancy Rate Regulation. Chairman Porter reviewed the recommendation from staff for a three percent vacancy rate as a determinant for an immediate denial without preju- dice of any conversion proposal, as well as the proposed word- ing from Norbert Dall and the testimony given at the meeting. The Commission reviewed and determined that more comprehen- sive analysis of this section was required. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO REVIEW BOTH THE WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO SECTION 9300.19 AND PRESENT RECOMMENDED WORDING TO THE COMMIS- SION AT THE NEXT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S. 9300.11.13 - Acoustics. Staff discussed its proposed revi- sion to this section, which specifies that projects shall meet the standards contained in Title 25 of the California Adminis- trative Code as they exist at the time of project approval. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO SUPPORT STAFF IN THE PROPOSED REVISION CONTAINED IN THE MAY 15, 1984, STAFF REPORT, ITEM 3, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,'Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -5- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 6 Other items discussed by the Commission in regard to the",conversion ordinance were as follows: Staff pointed out .that the words.,"apartment complex"'have 'been added to Section 9300,.'Application;of Article, to indicate -that such complexes ,are.included in these.eligible for conversion. Commissioner Wincheli questioned�why'no provision for'sec"urity gating has been included, such as the planned residential develop- ment standards require.. Staff replied that there is a section of the Municipal Cods.where that issue is .'discussed.: Ms. Winchell asked that staff look into why that provision is contained in the Municipal Code.instead of in the developmen,t;:standards.in Division 9 and report back. Commissioner Porter referred back ..to ;testimony_ on the ambiguity of month -to -month rental agreements.., -Art Folger_.informed the Commis- sion that any agreement is actually, a ,contract, but, if '.tliere,: is a concern the wording might be charged to ;call,,out _"any _contractt prior to the date'of this ordinance. " Commissionez Erskine"expressed reluctance to'decide on a questioh of this,nature_wi.thout further study and thought given to it by staff and'-the.leg al_department. ON MOTION -BY ERSKINE AND SECOND'BY LIVENGOOD"STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO ANALYZE THE CONTRACT.QUESTION IN LIGHT bF'THE PUBLIC -TESTIMONY, BY THE FOLLOWINd',STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins,, Winchell, Livengood, Porter,.Erskine_,_., Schumacher,-',Mirjahangir;_ ; NOES: None ; ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Further discussion of S. 9300 took place. Commissioner Winchell asked that the words "tenant household" be included in each section where it is applicable, as discussed at a prior meeting., ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON S. 9300 ADDING "APARTMENT COMPLEX" AND DIRECTING THAT STAFF ADD "TENANT -HOUSEHOLD". THROUGHOUT.THE DOCUMENT, BY THE .FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: - AYES: Higgins,:Winchell, Livengood, Porter, -Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None - = ABSTAIN: -None Staff will return the document as amended by the Commission to the June 5, 1984 meeting., The public hearing'remains'closed. -6- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 7 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1984 AT 6:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 (Cont. from April 17, 1984) Applicant: Donald Perry A request to permit an addition to a single-family dwelling loc- ated on the west side of Second Street 150 feet south of Orange Avenue. Michael Adams discussed the modifications to the layout and the proposed conditions of approval -for subject addition. He in- formed the Commission that the Redevelopment Agency has met with residents of the area in which Mr. Perry's project is located and the consensus of the majority of residents was that they were not interested in proceeding with a joint program with the Agency. The applicant's proposal, with the proposed conditions and review of elevations by the Design Review Board, will be consistent with the neighborhood and with the Downtown Specific Plan, and staff is recommending approval. In response to questioning from Commissioner Higgins, Mr. Perry said that if the modification of the stairway location as required in the suggested conditions of approval would result in very inefficient use of floor space he would very much object; however, if it merely means -that the stairway is not a closed, locked, separate stairway to the second floor he would be willing to abide by the condition. Staff -explained its concern that the stair location should be such as to preclude the possibility of separ- ation of the second floor into a future rental unit. Mr. Perry repeated his willingness to accept the approval of the Department of Development Services director, but asked that the Commission state that the general movement of the stairway as it comes down is acceptable without any double -back feature added. Mr. Perry also questioned the necessity for a future parcel map to consoli- date his property into one lot. The Commission reviewed the suggested conditions of approval and discussed the means of enforcement which could be used to assure that the commercial portion of the project was used for that purpose only. Chairman Porter informed the Commission that he would speak against a motion for approval in light -of the City's efforts in formulating the Downtown Specific Plan. -7- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission' May 15, 1984 Page 8 ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR'USE:PERMIT NO. 83-73 WAS APPROVED WITH THE.FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS---BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, -maintenance, and operation of the use will not be detrimental -to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working-in'the vicinity; b. Property and improvements'in"the vicinity of'such''use ''or' building. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of land use. 3. The proposal is consistent with" the:D'wntown`Specific`plan-. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans'of;the'`second-story, received_'and dated May 10,`1984 and floor Plan= -received and dated'March'16, 1984, shall be the approved layout­wi'th"the following modifica- tions: a. Area shown for.*alley dedication b. Existing ' lot. lines depicted'..` C. Location of stairway' depicted d. Elimination of eave overhang,across-•lot line e. Legal description 2. Elevations of the proposed addition and office/garage structure shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval. The'`architectural design shall be compatible with the Downtown Specific Plan design concept. 3. Residential interior stairway, is'� subject,,- to the. review and approval'of the Director of Development -Services 4. Prior•to issuance of. building.permits the.applicant.shall file a parcel'map'or parcel map waiver request,'toconsolidate, Lots 13 and 15, Block 302 of the . Huntixigton Beach - Tract'. ,. The parcel map or plat map and notice shall -be recorded with the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded parcel or plat map shall be filed.with the Deparltment of Development Services prior to final'inspection or .occupancy.' 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the ordinance code, Building Division, and Fire Department. -8- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 9 6. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 7. All buildinq spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 8. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, The applicant was informed of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-10/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-10 Applicant: Norman Woods To permit construction of a new church sanctuary and two new classrooms, as well as an addition to an existing classroom, for the Grace Lutheran Church located on the north side of Edinger Avenue west of Goldenwest Street. Commissioner Livengood announced that he will abstain from dis- cussion and voting on this item. Jim Barnes presented the staff report, pointing out that staff has analyzed the two major areas of concern, parking adequacy and compatibility with the surrounding area, and concluded that parking is adequate'to support the total use and that there is no conflict with the adjacent neighborhood. He discussed the height of the proposed cross which is a part of the building and which is in excess of the height limitation in the R1 zone. Procedurally, he indicated that the Commission can grant this height through the conditional use permit application. The public hearing was opened. Culbert Eaton, architect'representing the applicant, addressed the.Commission. He -presented slides depicting heights of spires and crosses on other churches and requested permission to extend above the code -permitted 40 feet. He also discussed the requirement for the automatic fire extinguishing system, saying that the church is willing.to comply with the code but there seems to be a question as to whether or not it is a code requirement and he would like that clarified. Tom Poe of the Fire Department indicated that he would provide the applicant with a copy of the code as amended in 1983 and will work with them to determine the need for the automatic system. -9- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning'Commission May 15, 1984 Page 10 The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Schumacher,•inquired if it was intended to light the cross',' and Mr: 'Eaton 'replied' that it will be externally•lighted by means of spotlights.from_three dir- ections; these will' be, operated by,'a clock•, coming- en 'at' sundown and going off at 11:00 p.m. Chairman Porter directed that Condi- tion of Approval No. 3 be amended to reflect compliance with the Municipal Code instead of the ordinance code. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-10 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir = NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Livengood ON MOTION BY ERSKINE-AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT NO. 84-10 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: ; 1. The proposed use is 'compatible ,With the, 'City '-s General -,-Plan.- :.. . 2. The proposed use is compatible•with surrounding land uses. 3. Sufficient •parking is proposed to satisfy ,-the demand -.for -facili- ties on the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations dated- March• 21,- 1984, - shall: be -the approved layout. 2. Fire hydrants shall be installed•in•locations' deemed necessary - by the Fire Department of Huntington 'Beach. 3. Automatic fire extinguishing system and a fire -alarm system shall be installed throughout the -new sanctuary subject to the requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code"and to the approval of the -Huntington Beach Fire Department. 4. Fire alarm systems shall be installed throughout all classroom areas subject to the approval -of the Fire Department.-' 5. If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy -efficient 'lamps shall be. used• , (e.g. , high-pressure, sodium vapor) All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. -10- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 11 5. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, j Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Livengood Applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL�USE PERMIT NO. 84-11 Applicant: Newman Investment Group A request to permit construction of a 50-unit planned residen- tial development on property located on the north side of Newman Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Van Buren Street. Jim Barnes presented the staff report and reviewed the areas in which the applicant is requesting special permits to deviate from code requirements. The Commission and staff discussed the special permit requests; Planning staff indicated that the building design accomplishes the code objectives for variation through offsets and differing number of stories in the units. In response to a question from Commissioner Livengood regard- ing the provision of only one entrance for a project of this size, Tom Poe,of the Fire Department replied the Department's requirement for automatic sprinkler system will mitigate any problems which might otherwise be caused by the single access. He also informed the Commission that the turning radius pro-, vided by the design of the hammer head and the street widths are adequate for Fire Department needs. Chairman Porter addressed the question of fencing, stating that the applicant's request indicates his intention to use wood fencing; Mr. Porter noted that prior conditions of approval at this site had required masonry perimeter walls and he would prefer that the same condition be -applied to this project. The public hearing was opened. Bob Corona, consultant for the developer, spoke in regard to the fencing. He said that his company had put in much of the development to the east in the 1970's and much of that fencing is retaining walls with fencing on top. He asked for the option of working with those existing walls when putting in future perimeter walls... There were no other persons to speak for or against the pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed. -11- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 12 The Commission discussed drainage for the project, asking for assur- ance that the hydrology study showed drainage.adequate to protect the areas to the north and east.. Les Evans of the Department of Public Works said that the basic problem in'the area is the backbone system - the flood control channels will not always handle drainage from the neighborhood. Staff has addressed this problem by requir- ing drainage easement across the,property to,the.north and the es- tablishment of a retention basin in the northerly section of the subject property. This retention basin will be able,to,handle about six hours of runoff from the property (approximately 3,000 cubic foot capacity). Commissioner Livengood noted that there appears to be no covered parking for the Type B units. Architect Miles Yamamoto replied that covered parking for these units is provided underneath Building Type A units, and each unit has assigned parking. Staff indicated that the travel distance from parking to unit meets all code require- ments. The Commission also reviewed the private open space allocated for each unit. Staff informed the Commission that, 'it is'the•intention to require that all conditions previously imposed'on an unexpired application on the property be applied to this application, -and that the' -approval of this request should nullify expired Conditional Use Permit 81-25. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS'AND SECOND BY'ERSKINE CONDITIONAL -USE PERMIT NO. 84-11 WAS APPROVED•WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: The special permit is granted allowinq deviation•from:' Section 9362.7(i) - Building Separation Section 9362.7(j)• - Building Separation Section 9362.10(b) - Building -Bulk Section 9362.10(c) - Building Bulk — Section 9362.15(a) - Private Accessway Widths 1. The applicant has made substantial progress toward conforming with standards in Article 936 of the -'Ordinance code and, there- fore, the project will promote•a better -living environment. 2. The project contains features -which provide good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design.- 3. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the-neighborhood'or of the City in general nor detrimental or injurious to'the' value of property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City in general. 1 -12- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 13 4. The project is consistent with objectives of planned residen- tial development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-11: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 2.5 acre parcel of land designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as high density residential and zoned R3-22 is proposed to be developed having a density of 20 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning.. 2. With the approval of the special permit requests, the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the require- ments set forth in Article 936 of the ordinance code. 3. The proposed project will not adversely influence living condi- tions in the surrounding neighborhood nor excessively increase traffic congestion on surrounding streets. 4. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for high density residential was placed on the property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-11: 1. The site plan, floor plans,,and elevations received and dated May 8, 1984 shall be the approved plans. All items not addressed by the approval of a special permit for the proposed project shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article .936 of the ordinance code. 2. Natural gas,shall be stubbed in at the locations of clothes dryers. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Develop- ment Services. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This re- quirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all showers. 5. All building spoils'such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy -efficient lighting shall be used in parking lots and shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. -13- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 14 7. All habitable structures on -the subject:property.shall be con- structed in compliance with State-acoustica l.standards.- 8. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and recreational 'vehicles onsite unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage and which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 936 of the ordinance code is provided for the project. 9. Detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a:registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommenda- tions regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, founda- tions, retaining walls, streets; -utilities, etc. 10. The design and materials of all,perimeter walls shall: -,be subject to the approval of.the Director'of Development'Servic's prior to issuance of building permits.. Such'_perimeter walls•shall*be constructed,of masonry, maintenance -free materials.,,. 11. A detailed landscape .and sprinkler: •plan, shall be .submitted_ by the applicant _subject to the. approval. of. tPie 'Department ,of• Devel- opment Services prior to the issuance,of building permits. 12. If at any time an entrance gate ,is proposed_ 'at..the,'.main.,'eritrance location, the .design of such `gate 'shall be_ `reviewed..and=approved by both the Fire 'Department•;and_. S6'..Depar.tment ;of .Development Services. 13. Automatic fire extinguishing•.systems 'shall be,.installed`through- out the -,development to comply, with Section. 10.'309 (y). • .of . the Huntington Beach Fire Code. 14. The complex. shall be signed `.arid` posted,Yper Fire Department • standards.to designate no parking-and.fire lane areas._ 15. Sewer, drainage, and street -improvements shall be designed in accordance with the Department of'Public Works standards. A hydraulics/hydrology study shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of grading permits. The height of the, retention basin wall along the northerly property line •shall .be one ',(1) foot above the curb bordering the retention basin. 16. Proof of a private,easement•shall be submitted to'the Department of Public Works allowing sewer and-drairiage facilities to'cross over private property to the north and concect into Michael Drive prior to issuance of grading permits. 17. Newman Avenue shall be dedicated and reconstructed from the cen- terline and shall be 22 feet from the curb to centerline. The eight (8) foot parkway and sidewalk shall be designed per City standards. -14- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 15 18. The subject project shall be subject to current park and recreation fees (Resol.ution.No. 5072). 1 1). Thr approva I of Co ii i i t i.una I Hso lloi,i ii t No. 84-1 1 sha I 1 hereby tui l 1 i fy and mako void Coii l i t ic�na I Uso Ilrrmi t No. 81-25. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood stated that his "nay" vote was based on his belief that the granting of five deviations from the code requirements brings the project extremely close to being an apartment complex. The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-14 Applicant: Schurgin Development Corporation To permit development of a parking lot on property zoned R5, to be used in conjunction with a shopping center on adjoining property zoned C2. Subject site is located on the south side of Main Street approximately 350 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Staff reported that a request has been received from the appli- cant for a continuance. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-14 WAS CONTINUED TO THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN JULY 1984; BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Mirjahangir. ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-10 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed code amendment to amend the depreciation formula contained in Article 927, Mobilehome Overlay Zones/Removal/ Rezoning/Change of Use, which require that depreciation stop as of the date of issuance of Notice of Intent to Change Use. Mike Adams presented the staff report, after which Comr,is- sion discussion ensued on the proposed alternative buy-out formula and the shelter park concept; it was noted that the alternate would slightly increase buy-out value, which had been the direction of the City Council. The public hearing was opened; no one was present to speak to the issue, and the public heating was closed. -15- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H. R Planning'Commission May 15, 1984 Page 16 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED CODE AMENDMENT NO..84-10 AND RECOMMENDED IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins,'Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir _ - NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO._ 84-14 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to amend the Circulation tlement`of the'General�Plan in the following areas: 1. Realign Fifth Street to tie in•with'Sixth Street between Main Street and Orange Avenue and --designate it as a secondary. 2. Redesignate Sixth Street from'a local to a primary between Orange Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. 3. Delete Fifth Street between Main Street and Pacific Coast High- way.- 4. Redesignate Orange Avenue from ,a secondary -to a 'priimary' between Sixth Street and •the tie-in with Atlanta -Avenue'- and 1dke 'Street. 5. Realign Lake Street (above Orange Avenue)' -to "V into ,Orange Avenue (via Third Street right-of-way), realign Atlanta Avenue. northwesterly into Orange Avenue, realign Lake Street (south of Atlanta)' to "V • into the Atl-anta/Orange -connection'." 6. Redesignate Walnut Avenue as-,aprimary-between Lake,SItreet 'and Beach Boulevard;- designate Walnut Aventie- as- .a- secondary' between Lake and Sixth Streets. Charles Clark presented the staff report -on the proposed -amendment, reviewing each area of concern and showing,a map which includes all the areas under consideration. He pointed out the three major re- visions in the amendment: 1) It -now includes -comments from the Department of Public Works on recommended -roadway -sections that were not previously included; 2) It is noted that the traffic analysis excluded beach -going trips; and,3) Language in: -the -text has been changed to reflect any redesignation of a street from local to secondary status. Commissioner Schumacher inquired how traffic could be kept from going through into residential areas and whether or not a more in-depth traffic study and analysis had been the intention of the,City'-Council. -16- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1985 Page 17 Michael Adams replied that the City Council action on the Down- town Specific Plan had accepted the Greer Report, leaving three major intersections for study at a later date. He indicated that the proposed amendment before the Commission is that study, addressing the areas required, and informed the Commission that there will be specific designs incorporated into the streets to discourage traffic flows into residential areas. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked if a feasibility study had been done on land acquisition and, if acquisition is necessary, who will bear the cost. Secretary Palin replied that there will be minimal acquisition necessary and what would occur would take place mostly at the Orange/Lake/Atlanta intersection, at the in- tersection of Lake and Second Street, and on the south side of Orange Avenue between Third and Sixth Streets. Cost data will be included in the specific street plans, but it has not yet been determined if the Redevelopment Agency will bear the cost. If the Agency does not assume the financial burden, it will be the responsibility of whoever develops the properties adajcent. Chairman Porter discussed the method by which street vacations are shown on the diagram, noting that some way was needed to differentiate between those streets which will be deleted as a result of this amendment and those streets which are only "possible future" vacations which will come about as a result of any future lot consolidations and development in the redevelopment process. After discussion, staff was directed to make whatever corrections are necessary to make these two cases as clear as possible. The public hearing was opened. Kay Seraphine, 509 17th Street, addressed the Commission to express her concern that adequate methods are implemented to prevent the intrusion of traffic into the townlot area, using the residential streets as a means of gaining access to Goldenwest Street. Dean Albright spoke.to the following: 1) When there is so much concern among the downtown residents on the circulation, why is there no public in attendance at this meeting? 2) Main Street is made the focus of the downtown redevelopment effort, but is being choked off at the northerly end; and 3) Walnut Avenue will become an alternate route for the heavy beach -going traffic. He closed by saying that this plan will "strangle" traffic attempting to reach the downtown from.the north end of the City and businesses on Main Street may -not survive such circulation. There were no other persons to speak for or against the amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion.ensued. This discussion included the handling of beach -going -traffic; the need for some construction design to assist in easy flow of traffic onto Beach Boulevard -17- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 18 from the Walnut extension, particularly north-bound;'the environs mental documentation; and possible revisions to protect the resi- dential neighborhoods from through traffic impacts. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE NEGATIVE'DECLARATION NO. 84-14 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter; Erskine, Livengood NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CIRCULATION`ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WAS APPROVED THROUGH'THE'ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1322 AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY'COUNCIL'FOR'ADOPTION,'WITH VHE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENTS: 1. On Page 11, Projected Traffic Volumes, the diagram shall be changed to clearly define the difference between.streets to be vacated as a.result of this.amendment-and -those to ;be vacated as a result of possible future,consolidation of properties under the redevelopment effort. 2. The diagram shall indicate the date when -the -ultimate projected traffic volume,will be reached and what percentage of build -out that ultimate traffic volume is based upon. 3. In 2.1.1, wording referring to Orange.Avenue between,Sixth Street and Goldenwest Street shall reflect the wording in the Downtown Specific Plan in regard to that section of Orange. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahanir NOES: 'Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9:40 and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-5 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to Article 969.9 of, the Huntington Beach Ordin- ance Code entitled Coastal Zone Suffix; such amendment would incor- porate modifications as suggested by the California Coastal Commission. The public hearing, after consultation with legal counsel., was, , opened simultaneously for Code Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, all dealing with modifications suggested by the Coastal Commission. 1 -18- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 19 There were no persons present to address any of the amendments, and the public hearing was closed. Jeanine Frank explained that if the City makes the suggested changes staff will report back to the Coastal Commission -and the City will have certified zoning implementation for the Local Coastal Plan. Environmentally, all are exempt as a part of the Coastal Plan. The legal department has requested numbering changes in some of the longer sections for clarity.- In reply to Commissioner Livengood, Ms. Frank indicated that Code Amend- ment No. 84-6 was suggested by the Coastal Commission in antici- pation of the future annexation of the Bolsa Chica; it is not strictly necessary at this time, but the inclusion of ref- erence.to boating channels, marina entrances, and dredging of channels would result in a more complete ordinance. She also corrected an error in C.A. 84-6, changing.dredging time to limit it to a 12-month period in S. 969.7.3(C). ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-5 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED NUMBERING AS MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter,'Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-6 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to Article 969.7 of the Hunatington Beach Ordinance Code, entitled Coastal Conservation District. Such amendment would incorporate modifications as suggested by the California Coastal Commission. Public hearing was opened and closed in conjunction with prior amendment. Commissioner Livengood questioned the inclusion of boating channels as a permitted use, when no decision has been made by the County on the Bolsa Chica as yet. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO DELETE ITEM (G) FROM S. 969.7.3 OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-6; MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood NOES: Higgins,.Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -19- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 20' ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY-ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-6 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED NUMBERING AS MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None- _ ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-7; Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed-amendment'to'.Article 965 of the:Huntington,Beach Ordinance Code, entitled Shoreline District -,'such amendment.would incorporate - modifications as -suggested by the -California Coastal Commission: Public hearing,was opened and closed in conjunction with prior amendment. - ON MOTION BY WINCHELL' AND SECOND BY-'ERSKINE •CODE AMENDMENT -NO. 84=-7 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED NUMBERING AS'-'MAY'••'Et' RECOMMENDED-BY*•THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RECOMMENDED'TO,THE=CITY-COUNCIL FOR- ­ ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - V AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood;-Porter,'Erskirie', Schumacher, Mirjahangir j NOES: None ABSENT: None, ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-8 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to -Article 969.8 of the Huntington -Beach Ordin- ance Code, entitled Water Recreation -District. -Such amendment would incorporate modifications as suggested-by,.the.-California Coastal Commission. Public hearing was opened and closed in conjunction with prior amendment. ON MOTION BY-WINCHELL-AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT­N0.'84-8 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED NUMBERING AS MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY,THE FOLLOWING VOTE: j AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -20- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B..Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 21 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84=9 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to Article 989.5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code entitled Coastal Development Permit. Such amendment would incorporate modifications as suggested'by the California Coastal Commission. Public hearing was opened and closed in conjunction with prior amendment. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-9 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED NUMBERING AS MAY BE RECOM- MENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-07 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A proposal to modify Condition No. 27 of a prior conditional use permit approval 'for'a commercial/office complex on the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard (C.U.P. 84-2). Michael Adams reported that the prior condition limiting the hours of operation of ,the theater was not satisfactory to the future tenant and the applicant is requesting modification to allow the theater to be open on school holidays and during the summer months. The -parking structure has been modified to accommodate additional spaces, and the project now will pro- vide 1,064 parking spaces. In its review of the amendment request, staff identified other areas of concern with the pro- ject and is recommending four additional conditions of approval. Jim Edwards, future tenant for the theater operation, spoke to explain his concern -with the hours of operation as initially conditioned. The Commission reviewed the proposal and the added suggested conditions as proposed by staff. Richard Harlow, consultant for the applicant, outlined the changes made in the parking for the project to accommodate the additional theater hours, and concurred with the staff's proposed additional conditions. -21- 5=15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 22 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-07 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL: 1, The revised site plan received and dated May 10, 1984.shall be the approved layout. 27. The theater shall not be operated on weekdays before 5:00 p.m. except on generally observed school holidays and during the summer months when school is not in session. 29. No medical office uses shall be allowed in.the development. 30. All employee parking shall be by permit, free of:charge, and shall be on the upper floors of the parking structure or as otherwise approved by the Director of Development Services. 31. Surface parking shall be for primarily public. use with only 10 percent allowed to be set aside for reserved or assigned'parking. 32. Upon completion of the first office building, the applicant shall be subject to quarterly reviews of.the total development parking situation. These reviews shall be conducted by City staff at the applicant's expense. If observed deficiencies exist and the parking available has reached a point of only five (5) percent or less vacant during the peak demand periods, the appli- cant shall cooperate with the City and/or the Redevelopment Agency to obtain additional parking spaces. Until a satisfactory park- ing arrangement has been reached with the City and/or Agency, no additional certificates to operate or certificates of occupancy shall be issued. -- AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-10 Applicant: San Alto Development Company A request to rezone approximately 2.21 acres of property from R5 (Office Professional) to-C2 (Community Business District)-. Staff reported that this request, previously denied by the Planning Commission, had been taken to the City Council on appeal, where the decision of the Commission was overruled. Council has sent the zone change request back to the Commission for a report.on the addi- tion of a "Q", Qualified, Prefix to the C2 zoning. The staff -22- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 23 has submitted proposed conditions which can be recommended to the City Council for the qualified zone change. Edward Jennings, representing the developer, requested clarifi- cation on the condition limiting height of the building, saying he would like to request a reconsideration of that height in order to allow him to erect parapet walls and/or screening walls. Staff explained the present code provisions to permit these types of construction over and above the height limitation. He also explained the processing for the required use permit appli- cation for development of commercial on the property. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE OF ZONE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY TO Q-C2 WITH THE FOL- LOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS: 1. Building height shall be limited to one story or 15 feet, whichever is less. 2. Loading and unloading -of vehicles from the rear of the dev- elopment shall be prohibited. 3. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in setback areas to buffer the development from adjacent residential uses. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works•. 4. A use permit application shall be submitted to and approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for the entire project prior to the issuance of building permits. AYES: Winchell,-Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM - SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN Applicant: Mola Development Corporation This planned sign program,has been prepared and submitted in re- sponse to the Commission's request when a special sign permit for a restaurant within -the project was tabled. Staff reviewed the applicant's propnsal•,and outlined the following changes it would make in the program; 1) The monument sign for Wong's restaurant must be moved over to the west so as not to block the sight angle for ingress/egress, subject to approval by Public Works and Development,Services; 2) The signing on the garden wall of Wong's restaurant'shall be limited to Chinese characters as proposed and no additional wording shall be allowed on this -23- 5-15-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 24 garden wall sign; 3) Office monument sign on Beach Boulevard must be of masonry construction and be compatible with the two monument signs on Adams Avenue; 4) Signing proposed for both,Seabridge Village and Seabridge Villas shall be designed as part of'the-perimeter entrance walls, incorporated into the walIs' and not freestanding; and 5) Any changes or additions to the program being submitted'and'dated as of May 9, 1984 shall -be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services and shall be a planned sign program amendment. Commission discussion followed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL.THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO SUPPORT STAFF IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM'FOR THE SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AS INDICATED BY STAFF ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:' AYES: Winchell,"Livengood, Erskine';''Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, 'Schumacher ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS: Michael Adams reviewed the pending legislation on this matter, in- forming the Commission that Assembly Bill 2869 is still in committee with no indication'of when'it might possibly be enacted into law. It is the legislation'which will 'most directly affect the City's action on developer agreements, and staff,is recommending that the agreements be enacted by resolution at.,this'.time'and re -introduced in ordinance form at such time as the state regulations'are in effect. 1 , . The Commission discussed the question of urgency. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE SUBMITTED PROCEDURES AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.''MOTION'FAILED BY'THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter NOES: Winchell, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erskine asked staff the reason for its request'for adoption by resolution. Staff responded that it feels there are a number of opportunities to use the developer agreement process in the near future and, rather than postponing it, staff would'like to proceed along the suggested guidelines at this time.''The time frame for preparing and processing an ordinance would -mean it could not be used until September of this year. The Commission again discussed the time factors involved. -24- 5-15-84 - P.C.. i Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 15, 1984 Page 25 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT PRO- CEDURES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IS TO PROCEED TOWARD EVENTUAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE, AND THE FURTHER UNDERSTAND- ING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL BY JANUARY 1, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Winchell DISCUSSION ITEMS: Resolutions 1319, 1320, and 1321, amending respectively the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1, and the Downtown Specific Plan, have been submitted for the Commission's information only and will be scheduled for public hearings on June 5, 1984. PENDING ITEMS: Michael Adams reported on the status of the pending items, not- ing that No. 14, handicapped ramp on the southwest corner of Magnolia and Indianapolis has been completed and can be removed from the list. Commissioner Livengood requested that an advertising balloon located on Edinger Avenue be added to the pending items listing for investigation and report. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood discussed the status of Graham Place EIR. He also commended staff for its early distribution of reports. Commissioner Mirjahangir commended staff for its prompt response in regard to an abandoned service station. Commissioner Schumacher questioned*if anything could be done about the condition of Slater Avenue between Gothard and Beach Boulevard. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on June 5, 1984. M Marcus M. Porter, rm n 5-15-84 - P.C.