Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-05Approved 7-10-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1984 - 6:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: - Civic Center / California Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter (9:00) Erskine, Schumacher (6:20), Mirjahangir None Commissioner Livengood directed that Consent Item A-1, minutes of the May 1, 1984 meeting, be pulled from the agenda because of a missing page. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 15, 1984 AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Higgins suggested that the Housing Element be moved to the last of the agenda or possibly set for a study session. Glen Godfrey pointed out that there is some urgency for action on the element and that Advance Planning staff will be present later in the meeting to highlight the amendments for the Commission. July 1, 1984 is the deadline established by State law for the amendments to be completed. Acting Chairman Livengood time limit for discussion ance and after that decide handled, stated that he will set a one -hour of the condominium conversion ordin- on how Items C5 and Cll will be Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach (Continued from May 15, 1984) An amendment to the ordinance code amending Sections 9310.1 and 9360.1 and adding a new Article 930 establishing standards and guide- lines for conversion of apartments to residential condominiums, stock cooperatives, or community apartments. Jim Barnes reported to the Commission on the modifications to the ordinance made at the Commission's direction at the last hearing on the matter. Staff has prepared an analysis of the method of calculat- ing density on a typical project using apartment standards versus planned residential development standards, and sections have all been renumbered to fit into the existing code structure. The two major changes made are: 1), Incorporation of a section pursuant to the Government Code regarding density bonuses, and a provision that in lieu of a density bonus deviation from the code can be allowed if incentives of equivalent financial value are presented, and 2) a section requiring that the Commission consider a vacancy rate factor prior to making a determination on a conversion request. Commissioner Erskine asked for clarification on the month -by -month rental agreements and was assured by legal counsel that such an agreement or lease did constitute a contract. The public hearing was reopened. Shirley Long, representing the Board of Realtors, spoke to the Com- mission to express that body's concerns. The main points made by Ms. Long were not to require conversions -to meet the same standards that are applied to new construction, to use density calculations applicable to apartment construction rather than the PRD standard, and not to impose an arbitrary vacancy rate factor as a condition of approval. In conclusion, Ms. Long asked that her group be given an opportunity to review the Housing Element amendment prior to the City taking action on it. There were no other persons present to speak in regard to this matter, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission determined to go through item by item and take straw votes on each. S. 936.5.3 - Fees. The Commission again discussed the merits of a per -unit fee versus a flat fee for all sizes of projects. Legal counsel advised that any fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual costs of handling an application. -2- 6-5-84 - P.C. 1 J Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 3 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO INSERT THE FOLLOWING WORDING RELATING TO FEES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: "Each application shall be accompanied by a per -unit fee covering the reasonable cost of processing established by resolution of the City Council, in addition to appli- cation fees." AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, S. 936-5.10 - Maximum Density. The Commission reviewed the background information submitted by staff comparing densities under both apartment and planned development standards. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO LEAVE THE WORDING AS IT STANDS IN THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None S. 936.5.10.7 - Building Separation and Setbacks. Commissioner Winchell suggested leaving these standards as they stand in the submitted ordinance, perhaps dealing with them on specific applications as special permit or as incentives and leverage in.working with the density bonus provision. THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO LEAVE THE WORDING AS IT APPEARS IN THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None S. 936.5.10 - Building Bulk. Commissioner Winchell indicated that her comments above had been meant to apply to this section as well. THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO LEAVE THE WORDING AS IT APPEARS IN THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, -3- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 4 S. 936.5.10.16 - Parking. Commissioners Erskine and Schumacher inquired about the logic and rationale for the parking requirement; in particular, if there is an inherent difference in the need for parking between apartment and condominium ownership complexes. Staff replied that at the time the ordinances were enacted there may have been a perceived difference in the parking needs; also, the difference may have been an attempt to achieve one of the Planned Residential Development goals to achieve a better living environment. Staff also indicated that the PRD standards are working out well and staff would advise retaining the higher standard in the conversion ordinance. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO LEAVE THE WORDING RELATING TO PARKING AS IT STANDS IN THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None 936.5.14(g) - Vacancy Rate Regulations. Commissioner Erskine said he would like to eliminate any percentage of vacancy as a determin- ant for approval or disapproval of_a condo conversion request. This was discussed extensively by the Commission, with the consensus emerging that the wording of the provision gives sufficient leeway and flexibility and is needed to protect the ability to retain some measure of the rental stock within the community. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO LEAVE THE WORDING RELATING TO THE VACANCY FACTOR AS IT STANDS IN THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins,-Winchell, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION APPROVED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16 AS AMENDED BY THE STRAW VOTE RELATING TO FEES AND RECOMMENDED IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOP- TION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -4- 6-5-84 - P.C. 1 I Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 5 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erskine commented on the lack of input on this code amendment from tenant groups. Acting Chairman Livengood asked staff to notify all persons who spoke at the hearings on the amendment of the City Council meeting when this is scheduled, as well as notifying tenant groups in the City. He also directed that the recap sheet and the information on the density calculations be submitted to the City Council as well. Acting Chairman Livengood informed the Commission that a re- quest has been submitted by staff for consideration next of the Ascon property proposed zone change. ZONE CASE NO. 84-3 Applicant: Ascon Properties Inc. A request to permit a change -of zone from LUD-0 (Limited Use District combined with Oil) to LUD-OI-Q (Limited Use District combined with Oil Production with a "Q" (Qualified) Suffix) on a portion of a 37.77 acre property located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. Howard Zelefsky explained that a mistake on the applicant's notification list had resulted in a significant number of neighboring properties being omitted from the mailing of not- ices for this hearing and a continuance will be necessary. Mr. Zelefsky made a brief staff report and presented slides showing the location of the portion of the property on which the oil drilling is proposed. The public hearing was opened. Norma VanderMolen, 9472 Lokahani Drive, spoke to ask the Com- mission to deny the proposal until the results of testing have been received and analyzed. Peter Toghia, 21292 Antigua Lane, asked that the applicant be required to submit a traffic study showing the kinds of trucks and traffic patterns to be used for the shipment of oil, citing the noise impacts and hazards to school children which might result from'the operation. There were no other persons present to speak at this time, and the public hearing was left open to the meeting of June 19. -5- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 6 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CASE NO. 84-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins; Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Mr.- Livengood informed the audience that the Housing Element will in all likelihood be continued to the next meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 Applicant: World Oil Marketing Proposal for the modification of an existing self-service gas sta- tion to a convenience market on property located on the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street. Michael Adams reported that although the applicant has submitted a redesign which adequately addressed the concerns in regard to the layout, circulation, and access the staff is still recommending denial as the use is not considered compatible with existing adjac- ent residential uses. The public hearing was opened. Paul Hakimian, representing the applicant, addressed the project as follows: 1) the market will not be a 24-hour operation, but will be open the same hours as the existing station-- 6:00 a.m..to 11:00 p.m.; 2) the two walls facing the residential are solid walls to alleviate noise impacts, with a window on the residential side so that the area can be observed at all times;. 3) a lighting system on the residential side will be provided and maintained at all times; 4) a chain link fence will be provided to prevent entry into the area abutting the residential uses at night; and 5) the market is intended for the use and convenience of customers only. Gordon Dailey, 20032 Gothic Circle, spoke in opposition to the conven- ience market, citing noise, intrusion, and trash and debris prob- lems already generated -for the neighborhood by the existing use. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. In response -to a query from the Commission, Secretary Palin informed them that the parking does not comply with the turning radius re- quired by the code; that landscaping and screening could be designed in but would then create a conflict with the pump islands; and that the applicant's proposal to fence off the area adjacent to the residential uses could create problems of inspection and enforcement in the future. -6- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 7 Further discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed project is not compatible with existing uses on the adjacent properties. 2. The proposed project will adverselv affect adjacent properties. 3. The proposed project would be an attractive nuisance and Possibly hazardous to children. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher. Mirjahanair NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 (Appeal) Apnlicant: Rudi Van Mil To permit a 3200 square foot drive -through restaurant and a 4400 square foot office/commercial building on propertv located on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue. Michael Adams presented slides of the proposed project loca- tion and reviewed the reasons for the prior denial by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. A revised site plan has been submitted, but the concerns of access and adequacy of parking remain. He said that taking access off Slater Avenue could lessen the prob- lem of all uses in the center using the same access off Beach Boulevard, where cars exiting the center aisles would tend to block traffic attempting to enter off the arterial. Mr. Adams pointed out that the total center is 10 spaces short of the required parking, based on the known tenant mix at the present time. However, Commissioner Livengood indicated that the 182 space parking calculation for the site includes room for 10 stacking spaces for the restaurant under consideration and only 5 spaces are available with the present configuration; therefore, he felt that the project shortage is actually 15 spaces instead of 10. The public hearing was opened. Carl Wayne, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application request. He said'his business does not generate -7- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 8 traffic, but only makes use of the existing traffic that comes through an area, and that the 10 stacking spaces referred to by Commissioner Livengood were 5 spaces for cars waiting to get ser- vice and 5 cars moving ahead after an order is given and the cus- tomer is waiting for his food. With their volume of business Mr. Wayne indicated that this would be adequate. In response to questioning from the Commission, he conceded that the drive - through window could possibly be repositioned to provide one or two more stacking spaces. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included the alternatives proposed by the applicant's traffic consultant, the overall development (both existing and planned) for the total shopping center site, and the ownership of the site. A Mr. Paul Serrano addressed the Commission to inform them that the center is owned by a single partnership composed of five individuals. The property is three separate par- cels for financial purposes, but a single set of CC&R's has been developed for the total center. Glen Godfrey also informed the Commission that a new application has been received in the Depart- ment of Development Services for the site; this new plan calls for a retail building on Pad C and a sit-down restaurant with no drive -through facility on Pad D. After further review it was the consensus of the Commission that the area appeared to be designed as two separate parts, with the layout not conducive to operation as a single entity and that future traffic, circulation, and parking problems were probable if approval were granted without the size and use proposed for the second building ,on the remaining portion of the center being known. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND DENY USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The onsite parking requirement provided for the proposed structure is deficient. 2. Reciprocal parking utilized with the adjacent center results in a parking deficiency'of 15 spaces overall. 3. The drive -through concept has the potential.of creating a hazardous onsite circulation pattern. 4. The drive -through concept has the potential of creating a haz- ardous ingress and egress traffic impact. -8- 6-5-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 9 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-20/USE PERMIT NO. 84-23 (Appeal) Applicant: Charles H. Bollman A request to permit an existing single garage with street access to satisfy parking requirements for the addition to a single- family dwellina with non -conforming yard located at 308 loth Street. Michael Adams presented the staff report. He indicated that the Fire Department has developed alternatives to satisfy fire protective requirements, but no concurrence has been received from the oil operator on the property for this application. The public hearing was opened. Charles Bollman, applicant, addressed the Commission. He sub- mitted written concurrence from the oil operator to his pro- posed expansion, adding that there is nothing he can do about changing the access to his property during the active life of the well (estimated at about 5 more years). He could provide tandem parking in the existing garage, but said he is reluctant to expand into the area behind the garage as it is the only yard available to his residence at this time. There was no one else present to speak in regard to this pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included the possibility of a deed re- striction on adjacent property owned by the applicant allowing this residence the use of the parking; conditioning to require that once the oil operation is abandoned the applicant would provide parking and access according to code; and use of the area off the alley directly behind the storage tanks as short- term, temporary extra parking until such time as the oil operation ceases. Legal counsel Art Folger cautioned that any such condition should contain a definite time limitation, and the Commission considered a five-year review period' to be added to any conditions of approval. Mr. Folger also warned the applicant that accepting conditions such as the suggested deed restriction or the life of the'oil operation might result in a cloud on his titles. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' ACTION AND DENY THESE APPLI- CATIONS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CONCURRENCE IS NEEDED FROM THE OIL OPERATOR FOR THE TEMPORARY PARKING, AT WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION WILL AGAIN CONSIDER HIS REQUEST. -9- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 10 Further discussion took place and it was suggested that a continu- ance would be preferable to give the applicant an opportunity to provide the temporary parking behind the storage tanks off the alley and to submit the oil operator's agreement with those spaces. The applicant was also advised that a five-year review period would be applied to any possible approval and that all fire requirements would have to be met. Commissioners Erskine and Schumacher withdrew their motion. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 84-20 AND USE PERMIT NO. 84-23 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEET- ING OF JUNE 19, 1984, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-3 Applicant: Seacliff Estates To permit a 10 foot by 10 foot double-faced, 20 foot high subdivision directional sign on property located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue. Michael Adams presented slides of the proposed location and proposed another condition of approval to provide that the sign shall not be directly or indirectly illuminated. The public nearing was opened. Dave Eadie, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that it is the desire of his'company to have direct lighting on the sign and suggested wording of the condition to indicate that the sign should be directly illuminated only, so that light would not spill over on any adjacent properties. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. Staff said that its principal concern.had been to'prevent internal illumination. The Commission reviewed the history'of,other signs in the area and considered the distance from the proposed sign to any residential units. The suggestion was made to allow direct lighting subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services, to which the applicant agreed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -10- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B, Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 11 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed sign will not adversely affect other signs within the area. With the exception of two tract identifica- tion signs located at the wouthwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue, no other signs exist within the area. 2. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of the directional sign. Residential housing located to the west is buffered from the proposed sign by existing landscaping and adequate setbacks. 3. The proposed sign does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. The bottom of the proposed sign is approxi- mately 10 feet from ground level. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated May 11, 1984 shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9760.17 through 9760.17.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, including the posting of a $300 cash bond and expiration of permits for subdivision directional signs. 3. The only lighting that shall be allowed for the sign shall be some type of direct lighting subject to the review and approval of the Director of the Department of Development Services. 4.• The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this special sign permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 1319 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A resolution adopting the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan as amended to'include wording adopted by the California Coastal Commission as suggested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act. -11- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 12 Jeanine Frank outlined the changes being proposed, indicating that adoption of the suggestions made by the Coastal Commission would complete the process of attaining permit authority for the City. The changes proposed in this location include recordation of easements across the beach, public access, signing of public access as open to public use, deed restrictions for the public facilities, provisions for 10 parking spaces to serve the public facilities, restriction of structures within the easements, and maintenance by the operator of the Bay Club. Commissioner Livengood recommended that section numbers be included in the specific plan for ease of cross reference; staff will in- clude these in the resolution. The public hearing was opened. Dick Harlow, representing the owners of the Bay Club, spoke to in- dicate agreement of that property owner with the suggested changes. There were no other persons present to speak in regard to the matter, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY'ERSKINE THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1319 AND RECOMMENDED IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 1320 Applicant: City of Huntington.Beach A resolution recommending to the City Council the amendment of Resolution No. 5223 adopting Area 2.4 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. Such amendment would add wording adopted by the Calif- ornia Coastal Commission as suggested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment into conformance with the Coastal Act. Ms. Frank explained the three additional conditions the Coastal Commission has added to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club portion of the Land Use Amendment: A maximum of 1.9 acres shall be used for the residential units; recreation facilities, excluding private open space, shall be open to the public; and adequate public access and , support facilities including parking shall be provided onsite. The public hearing was opened and closed. Brief discussion followed. -12- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 13 ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1320 AND RECOMMENDED IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 1321 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A resolution amending the Downtown Specific Plan to include wording adopted by the California Coastal Commission as sug- gested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act. Jeanine Frank explained the changes contained in the staff re- port; she also reported on added changes not contained in the staff report as follows: 1) In S. 4.1.03, Coastal Permit, the word "not" shall be stricken to make developments in the Downtown Specific Plan area subject to requirements pertaining to Coastal Development Permits; 2) In District 11, S. 4.13.04, Permitted Uses, a change is recommended to make District 11 subject to the identical conditions of development applicable to District 10; and Item 2 in the staff report should be amended to limit terraced parking decks and walls on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway to 12 inches below the top of the bluff, as opposed to the 18 inches delineated in the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the resolution. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER RESOLUTION NO. 1321 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AS ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ZONE CASE NO. 84-7 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Changes of zoning within the coastal zone of the City in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the Land Use Plan certified by the California Coastal Commission. These changes include: -13- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 14 1. All C2 and C4 parcels from Admiralty Drive north to the City boundary along Pacific Coast Highway will be rezoned Visitor - Serving Commercial (VSC). 2. All the area between Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean ex- cept within the Downtown Specific Plan shall be rezoned Shore- line District or Shoreline District combined with Oil (S1 or S1-0). 3. The Huntington Harbor waterways shall be rezoned Water Recrea- tion (WR). 4. The bluff face along the Huntington Mesa and the Least tern nesting site at'the mouth of -the Santa Ana River shall be rezoned Coastal Conservation (CC). 5. The property between the proposed alignment of Seaview and the Huntington Mesa bluffs, including the property between Edwards Street and the northwest City limits,- shall --be rezoned Recrea- tional Open Space with Oil (ROS-O) and Residential Agricultural with Oil (RA-0, 01). 6. All property within the Coastal Zone with the exception of par- cels in the Downtown Specific -Plan will have a CZ suffix attached to the zoning designations. Staff reported on the proposal. The public hearing was opened and closed. Commissioner Winchell,referring to a letter.received in support.of the zone change but questioning some of the development standards contained in the Visitor -Serving designation, asked staff for an explanation. Secretary Palin replied that when the standards were imposed staff had anticipated that adjustments would"later be nec- essary in some instances and these will be addressed as individual situations occur. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-7 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None -14- 6-6-84 -'P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 15 ITEM NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-08 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. Proposal to amend a previously approved site plan for The Ranch, a 562-unit planned residential development located on property at the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Huntington Street. Michael Adams explained that the revision proposed will incor- porate townhouse units into the area originally approved for stacked flats in this development. The townhouses will fit into the development envelope and be located on almost the same building pads as the original flats, and will result in a reduction of four units, making the total for the project 558 units. Dave Eadie, representing the applicant, also addressed the Commission to review the proposal. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION APPROVED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-08 WITH THE FOLLOWING CON- DITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: j1. The revised site plan received and dated May 30, 1984 shall j be the approved layout. f 2. All applicable conditions previously imposed on C.U.P. 81-8 I and TT 11417 shall continue to apply. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None f CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-4 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to the ordinance code incorporating pre- viously approved Code Amendments 83-3 and 83-25 as well as reorganizing Chapter 95 of the code. Proposed are added regula- tions to industrial districts regarding standards of performance and security and screening walls for outside storage and areas abutting arterial highways. -15- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning GoMqaS Qn. June.5, 1984 Page 16 Michael Adams described the code amendment and pointed out two areas where existing wording in the code had inadvertently been omitted from the ordinance under review. These areas are in S. 9510.01(c), where restaurants and sandwich shops need to be re- inserted under uses permitted, and S. 9510.17 where fencing pro- visions need to be re -included in both the Ml and M2 Districts. Staff will include both sections in the ordinance which goes to the City Council. The public hearing was opened and closed. Commission discussion followed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-4 WAS APPROVED WITH THE ADDITIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The Commission,recessed at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Porter arrived at the meeting at this time. The Commission reconvened at•9:10 p.m. HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to the Housing Element updating the statistical information contained in the element, adding new sections required by State law (Coastal Housing, Energy Conservation, Evaluation of Past Effectiveness of the Element) and adding new policies and pro- grams undertaken by the City since adoption of the Element- in November of 1979. Jeanine Frank outlined the changes made to the Housing Element. She informed the Commission that State law now requires revisions to a Housing Element every five years, with a completion date of July 1, 1984 for the first amendment. Major changes to the element are in the policy section and the deletion of the inclusionary housing re- quirement. Commissioner Livengood noted that the document has not been widely distributed for public review. Commissioner Porter questioned the possibility of energy conservation retrofitting and asked if staff intends to put forth such a program in lieu of applying energy con- servation to new development only. Florence Webb explained that -16- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 17 staff has attempted only to identify potential programs which could be looked at in the future, not to establish definite requirements at this point in time. Mr. Porter then suggested that it could be useful to determine how successful the gas and electric companies have been in their energy conservation programs which have been in operation already. Secretary Palin said that there are also studies recently done by OPR and the Energy Commission - these should all be analyzed very deeply for cost effectiveness before standards are proposed to the Commission. The Commission discussed the time constraints with staff, consid- ering whether or not lack of action by the July 1 deadline could invalidate the entire General Plan, whether the State would consider submittal of the proposed amendment as a "good faith" effort to comply with the time limitation, and whether or not the first submittal to HCD cound be construed as compli- ance with the deadline. Commissioner Winchell pointed out that the comments of State agencies on the proposed amendment might very well be pertinent to the City's decision on the document.and the City could very legitimately wait for those comments. Commissioner Livengood indicated that he has re- ceived a letter from Shirly Long of the Board of Realtors say- ing that that body has not had an opportunity to review the proposed amendment. The public hearing was opened. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1984 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher (out of room) ABSTAIN: None Staff was directed to distribute the amendment document to the Board of Realtors, any interested housing groups in the City, and to make copies available at the City Library. The public hearing remains open. DISCUSSION ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT - AREAS FOR DANCING WITHIN C2 AND C4 DISTRICTS: Staff explained the proposal to require a conditional use permit for dancing areas in conjunction with restaurant facil- ities in these districts, saying that the present lack of control'has resulted in parking and noise problems in some in- stances. -17- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B, Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 18 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A DANCE PERMIT CODE AMENDMENT AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins,-Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-6 (Pending) Michael Adams informed the Commission that a request for a zone change has been received from one property owner within a 10-unit development asking for a change of zone on .19 acres of property on Florida Street. It is the property owner's desire.to add a second unit to his residence. The property is surrounded by R2 and R3 zoning, and the General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential. Staff is requesting direction on whether the Com- mission would like to see the request expanded to cover the entire 10 lots of the development or the request rejected because of its size and the fact that rezoning such a small area would consti- tute spot zoning.. The Commission reviewed the request. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE OTHER NINE PROPERTY -OWNERS TO ASCERTAIN IF THEY HAVE ANY INTEREST IN SUCH A REZONING AND REPORT BACK, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE:. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MODIFICATION TO COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to modify the Coastal Zone access requirement in Sec- tion 969.9.5(2)(d) to reflect the structural setback of five (5) feet from an accessway specifically spelled out in the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. Staff explained that the CZ Suffix requirement of 15 foot setback is in conflict with the 5 foot setback allowed for -the Specific Plan, and asked -that language incorporating an exception be included in the suffix. The Commission questioned the need for -the excep-; tion because specific plans are intended to allow for deviations from the General Plan; staff said in this case the Coastal Zone 1 -18- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 19 Suffix states that it overrides any other regulations in the Coastal Zone and the exception is necessary in this instance. Dick Harlow, speaking for the owner of the Bay Club, indicated that they are supportive of the exception. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION APPROVED INSERTION OF THE EXCEPTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX 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 FORTUNETELLING ORDINANCE Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Legal counsel explained the City Council action in imposing an urgency ordinance regarding the subject, and emphasized the need for expeditious handling of the matter. Staff indicated that the code amendment to allow fortunetelling in designated districts in the City will be before the Commission as a pub- lic hearing item at its June 19, 1984 meeting. PENDING ITEMS: Michael Adams reported on the status of the pending items: 1) Planned sign program has been submitted for the shopping center at*Springdale and Edinger. 2 & 3� Partial compliance has been achieved for both the illegal signs and the illegal horse stables along Golden west Street. 4) Information is being prepared on the Design Review Board, for submittal to the Administrator and the City Council. Commissioner Livengood suggested that minutes of meetings of the DRB as it is presently constituted be forwarded to Frank Higgins; Mr. Higgins indicated that he will be willing to attend meetings of the DRB if notified. 5) Sign theme is being worked on for City -owned properties. 6) An administrative action application has been filed to bring the Everready Electrical sign on Edinger into conformance. 71 Background report on redevelopment has not been drafted in final format, but will be submitted. 8) State Recreation is objecting to a public recreation use for the old tennis court adjacent to the Huntington Pacific project on the beach. Staff is waiting for some interest to be shown by the Homeowners Association of the adjacent project. -19- 6-5-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 20 9) Barricades on Graham Place property. Public Works recognizes the problem but no design has proved workable. 10) Dumping on Edwards between Ellis and Garfield. Staff reported that this is an experimental composting project. A letter has been submitted by the operator to the City. Staff is analyzing to ascertain if there is any merit in establishing a type of temporary use to entitle operations of this sort; if found feasible, a code amendment will be prepared. 11) Considered completed. 12)Service station at Five Points. Partial compliance has been obtained. A request for prosecution may be necessary to get full compliance. 13) Staff is pursuing violators in regard to illegal second units in the Towblot Specific Plan area. 14) Baloon advertising on Edinger has been taken care of. 15) Condition of Slater Avenue. Public Works has been in contact with the railroad in regard to this matter. Temporary patching has been undertaken, but a permanent solution is the respon- sibility of the railroad company. The Commission discussed the potential for liability to the City with legal counsel, who ad- vised that once the City has notice of a potential" hazard some action must be taken within a reasonable -time to alleviate same. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A COMMUNICATION TO THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD PURSUANT TO WHATEVER STATE CODE AND REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT SAFETY HAZARDS EXIST'AT THEIR SLATER AND TALBERT AVENUE CROSSINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood,. Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood directed that copies of the Graham Place EIR be distributed to homeowners groups and other interested parties by Friday of this week at the latest. He also noted that the Environmental Board has asked for a presentation on negative dec- larations and the Board's status in the review process; staff was directed to follow up on that request. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reported on action taken by the City Council at its June 4, 1984 meeting. He also informed the Commission of a City Council study session for the purpose of receiving an update on the Bolsa Chica. The Commission is invited to attend this session, which will be held Monday, June 11 at 7:30 p.m. in Room B-8. -20- 6-5-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 5, 1984 Page 21 ADJOURNMENT: By unanimous straw vote, the Commission established July 10 and July 24 as the dates for their meetings in the month of July. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned to June 19, 1984 at 6:00 p.m. :df Tom Liv good, cti g Chairman -21- 6-5-84 - P.C.