Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-19Approved 7-10-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1984 - 6:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter (6:50) Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir (6:15) The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Livengood at 6:05 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: The minutes of the meeting of May 1, 1984 were pulled from the consent calendar for separate consideration. The minutes were continued from the previous meeting because of a missing page which is now included. -, ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 1, 1984 WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY COM- MISSIONER WINCHELL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: Erskine, Schumacher ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT OF SEVENTEENTH STREET AND UTICA AVENUE, EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TT 11603 AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TT 11673, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine discussed how other jurisdictions are comply- ing with the Mello Bill (SB 626) and indicated that he has asked for a report on how Huntington Beach is complying. Chairman Livengood directed that this report be added to the pending items list. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-15 Applicant: Edward McCoy, Director, Humana Hospital Huntington Beach To permit the addition of 20,020 square feet of floor area to an exisitng hospital located on the east side of Beach Boulevard south of Newman Avenue. Staff reported that a letter has been received from the applicant concurring with a.continuance to allow this application to be con- sidered at the same time as a proposed medical office building on property directly north of the hospital site. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 84-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-15 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 10, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None 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 1979. Commissioner Schumacher asked why reference to the flood plain regu- lations is not made in the element, saying that these regulations have a very•significant effect upon housing in the City. Staff replied that such considerations are normally addressed in the Safety Element of the General Plan but can be included also in the Housing Element. Commissioner Erskine discussed the possibility of including median income figures for the City as well as for the county in the docu- ment, and Commissioner Livengood asked that all figures given should indicate the dates when those figures were revised. The public hearing was opened. Shirley Long, representing the Board of Realtors, spoke to the Com- mission on the following points: 5.2 Retrofitting: Urged that retrofitting requirements for energy conservation not be•imposed upon resale, but -that these standards apply.only to new construction. -2- 6-19-94 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 3 8.5 Preserving Affordability: Ms. Long said that the state- ments in this section seem to favor rental versus ownership housing, and it is the Board's feeling that the goal of afford- able ownership housing is also a worthy one and should receive more concern. 8.2 Adequate Provisions: She suggested that a policy statement referring to conversions might appropriately be added to the other policies contained in this section. Median Sales Price: Ms. Long indicated that the median sales price of all residential listings sold in 1983 was $132,785. There were no other persons to speak in regard to the housing element, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood recommended that the average sales price for 1983 as noted by Ms. Long*be included; but that it ,be by number of bedrooms in the resale and that a qualifier be included to indicate that the information came from the Board of Realtors. Commissioner Erskine suggested that a sentence be added to "Policies," paragraph 3, to read."In some cases the con- version of apartments to condominiums would provide low and moderate income housing." After discussion, staff was directed to provide wording for the above, to be considered by the Com- mission later in the meeting. The Commission discussed the question of energy retrofitting, considering the present state and federal tax incentives pro- vided for this purpose and the programs already undertaken by the utility companies. Jeanine Frank submitted the following wording for S. 8.5.1: regulate the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums to minimize the adverse impact of such conversion on low and moderate income rental housing, keeping in mind that conversion may at times provide opportunities for home owner- ship." BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE NEW WORDING: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erskine suggested that the word "could" be replaced by "may" in the policy section referring to energy retrofitting. -3- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page. 4' BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO ACCEPT THE REVISED WORDING ABOVE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO INCLUDE THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE SUBMITTED BY MS. LONG WITH A DISCLAIMER INDICATING THAT THE INFORMATION WAS COMPILED BY THE BOARD OF REALTORS: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO INCLUDE INFORMATION AND MAPS FOR THE ADOPTED FLOOD PLAIN PROGRAM WITHIN THE HOUSING ELEMENT: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO INCLUDE THE DATES ON WHICH ALL TABLES CONTAINED WITHIN THE ELEMENT WERE REVISED: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-17 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS HOUSING ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 84-1 WAS APPROVED AS MODIFIED ABOVE, THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1323, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -4- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1584 Page 5 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Marcus -Porter arrived at the meeting.at this point and took over the chair (6:50 p.m.). Because it was not yet 7:00 p.m., the hour for which the public hearing on Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3 had been ad- vertised, Chairman Porter directed that a non-public hearing item be heard at this time. ITEM NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84'-10 Applicant: Alltrans A request to permit the leasing and sale of automobiles within an existing 13,165 square foot building in a mixed use development located on the east side of Gothard Street approximately 1200 feet south of Heil Avenue. Michael Adams explained that auto repair already is taking place in the subject building. Because of the mixed use nature of the total project, it is necessary to trade off the square footage which will be used by the proposed auto leasing for a like area elsewhere in the development, but the percentage of commercial will remain the same - approximately 33 percent out of a maximum allowable 35 percent. Staff has determined that this transfer from one suite to another will not affect the onsite parking or other development considerations within the project. The Commission reviewed the request and discussed the level of commercial activity in this particular project. Commissioner Winchell noted that there appears to be a great deal of traffic congestion at the site, and staff was directed to review the mix, percentage, and specific siting of the commercial and report back for the Commission's information. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-10 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND RESOLUTION NO. 1263 WAS APPROVED AS REVISED TO PERMIT AUTO LEASING WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated February 27, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. All previous conditions of approval contained within Condi- tional Use Permit No. 80-16 shall remain in effect. -5- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B'. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 6 3. The proposed use shall comply with all fire and building codes prior to the sale or lease of automobiles within the existing building. 4. No outside display of vehicles for sale or lease will be. permitted. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 'REPORT NO. 83-3 (Cont. from April 24, 1984) An analysis of a general plan amendment and prezone request to redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street.between the Orange County Flood Control Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential, and to prezone the same property low density residen- tial (Rl). Commissioner Erskine announced that he will continue to abstain from discussion and voting on this item. Howard Zelefsky briefly discussed new information distributed to the Commission and Informed the Commission of .letters received from three state agencies in regard to the EIR. The Department of Fish and Game maintains its position that the EIR should not be certified (a position with which City planning staff disagrees); the Coastal ' Conservancy's letter indicates that the project is not incompatible with the planning efforts in the Bolsa Chica; and the County EMA repeats its past concerns. ? Florence Webb updated the Commission on the status of ongoing plans for the Bolsa Chica and described the recently adopted City Council resolution outlining the City's concerns in the areas of circula- tion, service delivery, land use planning, and ocean access. Tom Livengood directed that this resolution be circulated to interested groups in the community. Ms. Webb pointed out that an EIR is intended only to be a good faith effort to address environmental information available at the time it is prepared. In reply to the comments received in regard to the timing of the proposal, she said that any future information. which may surface as a result of the County's or the Conservancy's -6- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 7 plans can be addressed in the future, with the possibility of a new environmental documentation if such plans result in drastic changes in the existing conditions. Ms. -Webb also explained the one-year deadline for the EIR, which expires August 17, 1984, and emphasized the need for action to be taken in some manner before that date so that the EIR does not automatically become approved. The public hearing was reopened. Lynette Cervantes from Van Dell & Associates explained the mitigation matrix and the other supplementary information sub- mitted, adding that these items will be incorporated into the final EIR. Chairman Porter directed that the testimony given at this meeting also be incorporated as part of the documenta- tion, by reference or in the file. Ms. Cervantes discussed the Woodward Clyde report for the area in regard to liquefaction, subsidence, and surface faulting. She said the report indicates that liquefaction is likely to occur in the area south of the subject property; that the sub- sidence rate for the subject property is only moderate (.2" for subject parcel, .3" for the existing adjacent residential, and 1" per year for the oil fields); and surface faulting is not considered a problem on the site which is 1000 feet from the north branch of the Newport/Inglewood fault. Ms. Cervantes further informed the Planning Commission that her firm had held meetings with the State agencies to try to ascertain precisely what they wanted altered in the EIR, and were given no specific mitigations or methodology; the overriding concern.of those agencies was with the timing'of the project. She expressed the opinion that this project would not preclude any of the planning options for the land use plan for the Bolsa Chica and noted that all of the impacts identified in the Woodward Clyde report are mitigable. . Darlene Frost, Project Manager for Signal Landmark, said she felt that there is insufficient information in the'EIR to make a determination as to whether the impacts have been adequately addressed. She questioned the City's jursidiction over the project, conceding that the City does have a legitimate planning interest but the jurisdiction rests with the County and the Conservancy. Ms. Frost indicated that Fish and Game, in a recent letter to the Fieldstone Company, had said that 75 per- cent of the subject site is considered as wetlands by that agency. It was her contention that it is too soon in the planning process to approve the EIR and that any approval would be open to challenge; she urged to Commission to at least table the document until planning has been completed for the total Bolsa Chica. -7- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 8 Andy Durham,. representing the Fieldstone Company, spoke in sup- port of the EIR, saying that it is consistent with both the Bolsa Chica planning efforts and with the resolution adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council. In response to questioning from Chairman Porter, Mr. Durham said that his company.is prepared to engage in additional environmental assessment on the property at some point -in the future during the entitlement stage if necessary. Rhoda Martyn speaking for the Amigos De Bolsa Chica, said that their review has found a number of important and substantive con- cerns still unaddressed: 1) the desilting basin; 2) a critical lack of information on•elevations; 3) no response has been made to the comments of the Department of Fish and Game; and 4) geo- technical concerns need to be addressed. She concluded by saying that it is clear that the EIR does not meet the requirements of the law and further information must be provided before it is approved. Dick Harlow, representing Fieldstone, addressed some of the com- ments submitted. In speaking to the elevations, he noted that the bulkhead is really dependent on the adoption of one of the plans for the Bolsa Chica itself - as the area presently exists there is no need for any fill to accommodate development on the subject prop- erty. He also expressed the opinion that the EIR is consistent with the County's and the Conservancy's plans. Dean Albrite spoke to protest what he termed the "giving''away" of natural resources such as the Bolsa Chica in the State of Calif- ornia. There were no other persons to speak for or against the EIR, and the public hearing was closed. Very extensive discussion took place regarding the timing and,pro- cessing of the EIR, the definition and treatment of wetlands, and the adequacy of the EIR in the areas of elevations, biological re- sources, geotechnical impacts, the desilting basin, etc. The Commission considered whether or not.it is possible to certify the environmental document for this small parcel of the Bolsa Chica when the total planning for the entire area is not completed. Staff pointed out that the County has already certified an EIR for the total area, which will go before the Coastal Commission. Secretary Palin explained -that the EIR under review here has been prepared as a first step in the process of annexation, although no application for annexation has been received by the City. If the EIR is certi- fied and the City adopts the requested General Plan amendment and prezoning, all three items (EIR, amendment, and zoning) would have to go before the Coastal -Commission for certification, as this area is not a part of the City's Local Coastal Plan and permitting auth- ority remains with the Coastal Commission unless and until the area falls within the City's boundaries. -8- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 9 In the discussion regarding elevations, Commissioner Livengood suggested modifying the EIR language to delete the word "minor" from the description. Ms. Cervantes indicated that as the property exists now there are minor alterations, but the testi- mony presented by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica was made in refer- ence to the possible tidal influence of a possible future ocean cut. She indicated that with the introduction of the tidal barrier there would be a difference, but the distance between the location of that barrier and the subject property should provide adequate space to take up those elevations and meet the existing grades. It was her opinion that merely changing the wording would not be sufficient to mitigate their concern. In the.discussion on wetlands, Commissioner Winchell said that the document assumes -the Signal Bolsa definition of wetlands as .opposed, to that of the Department of Fish and Game. By starting with that assumption, the impacts that might be true using the expertise of Fish and Game have not been addressed; these im- pacts should be included in the EIR also, or at least a reference made that Fish and Game does present a different definition of wetlands. In this regard, Howard Zelefsky clarified the contents of the letter from Fish and Game to the Fieldstone Company as saying .. regarding wetland acreage, utilizing perhaps 75 percent (or30 acres) would have to be ensured. On the other hand, it is not possible to restore 30 acres due to surrounding development. Accordingly, Fieldstone's restoration would occur offsite." He noted that this information could be incorporated into the document and distributed to the community. Also in this regard, Florence Webb quoted the letter -from the Coastal Conservancy (charged with the responsibility of preparing the Habitat Conservation Plan and acting as "middleman" in the Bolsa Chica planning process) as stating: "It is highly unlikely that the HCP and*the Fieldstone plans would be incompatible . . only issues are the acres of wetlands Fieldstone must restore and the size and nature of the settlement basin:" A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO ACCEPT FINAL EIR 83-3. AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFI- CATION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Schumacher NOES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: - None ABSTAIN: Erskine Further discussion ensued concerning the adequacy of the informa- tion in the EIR, the time constraints imposed bylaw upon the processing of the EIR, and the desirability of action being taken which would enable the City'Council to conduct public hear- ings prior to the August 17 date upon which the EIR would automatically be considered certified. Legal counsel advised that a finding of inadequacy with a recommendation to the City Council for denial would move the -public hearing process ahead for Council consideration. -9- 6-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 10 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS FOUND INADEQUATE, WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT.IT NOT BE CERTIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, NOES: Higgins, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir Schumacher A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO ADD AS A FINDING TO THE ABOVE ACTION THAT A KEY REASON FOR FAILURE TO CERTIFY THE EIR WAS THE ABSENCE OF A FINAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE BOLSA CHICA AREA TO PERMIT IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES; E.G., BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, ELEVATIONS, THE DESILTING BASIN, ETC. The motion was discussed by the Commission, and died for lack of a second. The meeting recessed at 8:20 and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. ZONE CASE NO. 84-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-11 (Cont. from 6-5-84) Applicant: Ascon Properties Inc. To permit a change of zone from LUD-0 (Limited Use District com- bined with Oil) to LUD-Ol-Q (Limited Use District combined with Oil Production with a "Q" (Qualified) Suffix) for property located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. Howard'Zelefsky reported that the notification problem has been corrected and all property owners within 2000 feet of the subject property have now been notified. Mr. Zelefsky reviewed the pro- posed conditions of approval for the "Q" Suffix in regard to limitation of the site area, sound proofing, and access, and called attention to the recommended change in conditions to require that drilling not proceed until final site characterization test results have been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. He informed the Commission that the -01 request is for an approximately one -acre portion of the site in the southwest cor- ner of the property; this site is 15 feet below the landfill and is an area where no prior dumping has occurred. The Commission duscussed the language of the moratorium and consid- ered whether or not oil drilling would constitute "removal," ex- pressly prohibited by the moratorium on this property. The public hearing was opened. John Lindsey, Vice President of Ascon Properties Inc., addressed the Commission in support of his proposal. He indicated that they plan 10 wells for the area, and agreed that nothing could take place [1 -10- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 11 until after the site characterization has been satisfactorily completed. However, he stated that EPA test borings on the site found no contamination in this particular portion. Upon questioning from the Commission, he said that the EPA drillings had been from 30 to 70 feet deep and were intended to determine ,if any migration of contaminants had been occurring. George Mason, 21641 Bahama Lane, asked the Commission to consider the history of this site and of other hazardous waste sites in the State of California, saying that it is in the best interest of the community not to change the zoning until complete test results are available. He said that access to the site would constitute disturbance of the soil through the building of roads into the property and could jeopardize public health as a result. Henry Borman asked that some assurance be included in any change of zone that the applicant will clean up the landfill. He also noted that nothing in the zone change request precludes the appli- cant from requesting more wells at some later date. Beverly Titus, 9062 Bobby Circle, addressed the Commission to state that as long -as full disclosure of all available informa- tion is made before any drilling operations proceed on the site she is not uncomfortable with the oil wells at the proposed location. She said that any entitlement for actual drilling on the site should incorporate the findings of the site character- ization study. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir described slides being shown by staff depicting noise insulation walls around drilling rigs which cut down noise impacts to surrounding areas. In.response to questioning from Commissioner Erskine, Mr. Lindsey said that his firm feels it will take close to five years to recoup the costs of the proposed drilling operation. After that it is hoped that the wells will generate a cash flow that can be allocated toward the clean up of the total site. He indicated that the testing will take about a.month, with a two to four month period of time after that to allow the Department of Health to review the results. This zone change request is an effort to get this portion of the process under way. Mr. Lindsey also said he had no objections to the recommended change in conditions to prohibit any drilling until Planning Commission review of the site characterization study. Commissioner Porter noted that this condition should be further amended to read ". and it is determined that drilling can safely proceed." Commissioner Livengood, noting that delaying the zone change until after the characterization was completed would add only -11- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 12 a month and a half to the time frame, asked the applicant if this would impact his schedule. Mr. Lindsey replied that it would, be- cause of the desire to establish a separate identity for the drill- ing operation. Tom Benton, petroleum engineer, informed the Commission that it is planned to drill straight down 500 feet, slant drilling from that location. The operation is controlled by State law, and protective casing is required to prevent any contamination of the fresh water aquifers; this prevents water from entering the bore and any contam- inants from entering the aquifer. The Commission discussed the time period for the "Q" designation, the future clean up of the site, and how drilling might affect both the rest of the site and the adjacent neighborhood. It was the consensus that the Commission could find no urgency or compelling reason to proceed at this time and that a continuance was in order. Staff reported that the applicant has submitted a letter waiving the mandatory processing date, but legal counsel indicated that he would prefer the applicant's concurrence to be given orally at this meeting. Mr. Lindsey again addressed the Commission. He said that if the testing is completed prior to the suggested continuance to September 18 he would like to bring the matter back prior to that date. With that proviso, he concurred with a'continuance. Commissioner Mirjahangir said that the primary objective of the City is to obtain clean up of the landfill and postponing the zone change will not solve any problems. He presented the following list of conditions that he would like to see applied to the proposal: 1. He did not consider the "Q" zoning appropriate to the proposal. He proposed allowing the zone change for a period of six (6) months or less; if no activity has taken place within that time the property would revert to its original.zoning. 2. The applicant should file with the City a permit from the Division of Oil and Gas, and through cooperation with the Planning staff assure the citizens that the hazardous waste material will not contaminate the fresh water aquifer during the drilling opera- tion. 3. The Oil Code will require the applicant to go ahead with the drilling operation within certain parameters. 4. The property could be fenced with a double insulating wall 30 feet high to assure sound being fully contained. 5. Construction shall proceed in such a fashion that it would stop any dust problem. 6. Funding from the revenue produced by the oil wells shall be used for a time period set at the discretion of the City Council for the clean up and removal of hazardous waste material from the total site. -12- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June -19, 1984 Page 13 Mr. Mirjahangir proposed the approval of the zone change with the foregoing conditions, subject to the approval of the appli- cant. Commissioner Winchell suggested that at the time of entitlement a condition could be imposed requiring that at the time of drilling the applicant should present to the City a program of clean up for the site, so that any permits could be tied to the clean up as opposed to giving just entitlement to drill. Staff was instructed to bring back some method of accomplish- ing that objective. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 84-11 AND ZONE CASE NO. 84-3 WERE CONTINUED WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MATTER CAN BE BROUGHT UP SOONER IF SITE CHARACTERIZATION IS AVAILABLE WITH A DETERMINA- TION MADE BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir. NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff was directed to present the conditions outlined by Com- missioner Mirjahangir at the next hearing, as well as that pro- posed by Commissioner Winchell and the conditions presented in the staff report at this meeting with the amendment suggested by Chairman Porter regarding the determination on the safety of drilling. USE PERMIT NO. 84-32 (Appeal) Applicant: Ed Giardina To permit a temporary outdoor event to be held from October 12 to October 14, 1984, on property located at 16400 Sprindale Street (Bonaventure Church). Acting Secretary Glen Godfrey outlined the reasons for the Board's denial of the use permit request as being parking and traffic, litter in the adjoining neighborhood, and violations of the safety codes in the City. Staff is recommending that_ the Commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustments and deny Use Permit No. 84-32 with findings, but has prepared suggested findings and conditions of approval if it should be the Commis- sion's determination to approve the request. Sergeant Cope of the Huntington Beach Police Department pre- sented a list of calls generated last year over the three-day period of the festival. These consisted of calls for noise, -13- 6-19-84 - P.C, Minutes, H.R. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 14 fights among juveniles, cars blocking driveways and fire hydrants, one medical assistance call, one auto burglary, and one stolen car, as well as 30 parking citations issued over that period in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has since been able to obtain use of 150 extra parking spaces from the church across the street. The Police Department has ongoing concerns with the numbers of persons who will be crossing major arterials streets without a signalized in- tersection. Sgt. Cope -emphasized that the Police Department is making no recommendation but is simply pointing out facts that need to be addressed. The public hearing was opened. Ed Giardina, applicant and appellant, spoke to the following concerns: Parking: Last year's parking problems were caused in large part by very unseasonable rains which.forced the rides over.onto the asphalt; he estimated that they lost 100 parking spaces because of that. Mr. Giardina said that his own church has 350 available parking spaces by actual count and 150 more are available this year through the use of the parking lot of the Lutheran Church across the street. Volunteer workers will be encouraged to park at the Lutheran location to leave the closer spaces for customers. The Lutheran Church has no services which will be in conflict with the carnival. Pedestrian Crossings: Volunteers will be used to try to control street crossings, urging people to use the intersection for crossing. Litter: Mr. Giardina said they will hire a street sweeper to clean up the church grounds and the -streets, and will hire a clean up crew to go down the streets and clean up the neighbors' lawns. He felt this should reduce the complaints appreciably. Barricades: These will be erected if the City desires them to be, with crossing guards stationed at each barricade. If the barricades are required to keep customers.out of the neigh-. boring areas, stickers will be issued by the church to identify homeowners within those areas. Hours of Operation: Mr. Giardina outlined the hours it is planned to have the carnival open, saying that presently they are planning the hours so there is no conflict with any services. Commissioner Higgins noted that the critical services were the Saturday and Sunday evening masses, and asked if those were the ser- vices to be curtailed; Mr. Giardina replied in the affirmative. Alcoholic Beverages: Beer and wine will be served in the beer tent, which will be located as far as possible from the rides. However, no restrictions will be invoked to prevent customers from taking beverages out of the tent if they wish to do SO. -14- 6-19-84 - F.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 15 Mr. Giardina presented petitions containing several hundred signatures from persons in support of the carnival. Redmond McAneny,.7641 Whitney Drive, urged the Commission to consider the positive aspects of the carnival in terms of fellowship and family entertainment. He also noted that the Fire Department had had no trouble in gaining access to the medical emergency which occurred at the event last year. Steve Jacobs, 16351 Gentry Lane, spoke in support of the pro- posal, citing its value as a traditional event. He also said that to his knowledge there had been no accidents of conse- quence at the event. He submitted 1800 petitions in support. Kine V. Price, 16271 Duchess Lane, said he has lived in the area for the entire time it has been held and has never experi- enced any problems or had any complaints. Baron A. Coenen, 6172 Montecito Drive, addressed the Commission in support of the project, saying the noise and traffic prob- lems are minor compared to the community advantages emanating from -the festival. Ray R. Annis, 16341 Angler Lane, said he looks forward to the carnival every year. Doug McFarland, 5882 Carbeck Drive, spoke in support. He said that the benefits to all people must be weighed against the inconvenience a few may encounter as a result of the carnival, and that the source and nature of the complaints should be considered. Mrs. Robert Armstrong, a resident on Bradbury Lane, spoke in opposition to the request, saying that the petitions sub- mitted may not have been from persons in the area who are affected by the heavy traffic. She also indicated that the calls -to the Police Department last year should not be the only ones considered - in 1978 and 1979 there were many more, some of which she alleged went unanswered. Mrs. Armstrong also pointed out that clean up had always been a condition imposed on the carnival and it had never been done. Another point she wished to make was that, although the event is described as a three-day event, construction and preparation begins at least by the middle of September and by the time all clean up on the site has been accomplished it is more like a two -month event for the surrounding neighborhood. Citing unclean conditions on the site,,failure to comply with conditions, and extensive damage suffered in the past by some residents on Brassie Circle, she said the appeal should be denied. Virginia Mason, neighboring resident, also spoke against the' granting of the request. She said that she had suffered $800 in damages from the carnival goers in 1978 and cited damages also suffered in that year to City property. Ms. Mason said that neighbors have tried to co -exist with the carnival, asking for -15- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 16 some sort of control from the church which has not been forthcoming. For example, she said that 1983 was the first year the rides had actually been shut down at 9:30 since that condition was imposed on the permit. Another point made by Ms. Mason was that the City had recently approved a new building for this church site - she asked if the church was waiting until after the 14th of October to begin construction or if construction would be going on during the carnival. In the latter event, where would the rides be placed if construction was taking up the original space for them, and what effect would that have on parking, etc.? Mrs. Josephine Calkin, 16342 Angler Lane, said that she was speak- ing*on behalf of several neighbors. She expressed the opinion that the carnival has grown too big, with rides and attractions that do not belong in a residential area. George Voucl, 6052 Montecito Drive, said the carnival is like the Fourth of July - it always brings problems but these have to be balanced against the values. Chris Munoz (no address given) spoke in support of the carnival. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. In response to questioning from the Commission, Mr. Giardina said that the new building will be'under construction during the festi- val.. The church is building a new parking lot to replace the spaces that will be lost and the construction will not affect the park- ing available; in fact, Mr. Giardina indicated that the new lot will accommodate 30 to 40 more cars than the present one. The rides will be limited to the grassy area only. Commissioner Porter questioned why barricades were not use last year, and Sergeant Cope replied that at no time were there more than four officers on duty at the site at any one time. These officers were not sufficient in number to man all the barricade sites, and had used their judgment to remain on the site to provide protection there. If onsite protection as well as men to man the ?barricades are to be provided, more personnel will be required. Extensive discussion took place as to the number and type of police protection to be provided. Commissioner Winchell recalled that last year the provision was that the Police Department was to tell the festival operators how many officers were needed and where to put them. Sergeant Cope cautioned that there is no assurance that enough uniformed personnel will volunteer to work at the car- nival to be sure of having sufficient police protection, and it was determined that in that case private security people could be hired. Commissioner Higgins indicated that he would be in favor of the carnival but it should be conditioned, such as restricting the use of the church on Saturday and Sunday evenings, requiring'that*there -16- 6-19-84 - P.C. I 1� Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 17 be parking available at the Lutheran Church, providing tempor- ary fencing on Bradbury Lane, and possibly assigning someone to check to see that these things are indeed done. After further discussion the consensus emerged that the Com- mission favored approval, and the suggested conditions of approval were reviewed in detail and accepted, amended, or added to after individual discussion. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OVERRULED THE DENIAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST- MENTS AND APPROVED USE PERMIT NO. 84-32 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: By imposing conditions to mitigate past concerns, the City of Huntington Beach hereby finds: 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 granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the.City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The plot plan received April 25, 1984 shall be the approved layout subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical permits. 2. An onsite inspection by the Fire Department shall be re- quired prior to the event. 3. A certificate of insurance form shall be filed in the Finance Department at least five (5) days prior to the event. 4. All trash, debris, and garbage, as well as special dumpsters shall be removed from the site within two (2) days of the closing of the festival. 5. Use of amplifiers, speakers, musical instruments, and play- ing of recorded music are to be discontinued as of 9:00 p.m. each evening. -17- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 18 6. Any refrigeration truck to be placed onsite shall be located as near the intersection of Springdale and Heil as possible to minimize noise from the unit. 7. Barricades shall be placed at the intersections of Springdale and Brassie, Springdale and Orlando, Heil and Bradbury, Orlando and Bradbury, and Orlando and Angler. The applicant shall pro- vide at their expense uniformed police officers to man the barricades at all times during the hours of operation at all locations except Orlando and Angler, one (1) hour prior to the opening of the festival to the close of each day (to be approved by the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Division of the Police Department ). 8. In number as determined by the Police Chief, uniformed officers shall be provided onsite during the operation hours of the event. The number of officers shall not exceed 10 officers at any one time. Where there may not be a sufficient number of Huntington Beach Police officers, the applicant shall hire private security guards. 9.' All equipment and manpower required by Conditions Nos. 7 and 8 shall be provided at the applicant's expense. 10. Appropriate signs (temporary) for the direction of traffic and onsite parking shall be provided by the applicant. Said signs, location, and content to be as recommended by the Traffic Division of the Police Department. 11. The vehicular access off Orlando and Bradbury shall be secured and not used for ingress -egress to the site except for emergency purposes. 12. All operations of the festival, including machinery other than necessary refrigeration units, shall desist between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 13. All activity on the site or clean-up activity offsite shall, be shut down by 11:00 p.m. i 14. The applicant shall provide professional clean-up crews to clear the adjacent streets of trash and debris each evening after closing of the activity. 15. No structures, booths, etc. shall be erected on the.site sooner than two (2) weeks prior to the event, and all evidence of the activity (booths, rides, and other material) shall be completely removed from the site within two (2) weeks of closing of the festival. All rental equipment shall be removed from the site within one (1) week of closing of the festival. 16. All vehicular ingress and egress to the site shall be via the church driveway located mid -block on Springdale. -18- 6-19-84 - P.C. u Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 19 17. Prior to operation of any equipment used in conjunction with the amusement rides, the City shall be in receipt of State certification and permits, showing inspection within one (1) year period, stating that the rides meet all re- quirements of the State Industrial Safety Division. 18. A certificate to operate shall be issued by the Director of Development Services prior to the event.. 19. Alcoholic beverage sales are subject to review and approval of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and issuance of a license. 20. The church site itself shall provide 350 parking spaces onsite,*plus submittal of a written agreement from the Redeemer Lutheran Church across the street for the provi- sion of another 150 spaces. 21. Some additional temporary fencing shall be erected along Bradbury Lane to close off any access from that street into the festival grounds. 22.. The 5:30 p.m. evening masses on Saturday and Sunday shall not be held, to avoid conflict of parking with the festival. 23. The Commission -recommends that an announcement be made in the church to ask the parishioners not to park on the neighborhood streets, and that workers at the event itself be encouraged to park in the Lutheran Church parking lot. 24. The hours of operation of the festival shall be limited to the following: Noon to 9:30 p.m. on Friday; 10:00.a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturday; and-1:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday. 25. -In the event there are any violations of the foregoing con- ditions or any violations of life safety codes, the festival activity will be terminated and not permitted to reopen. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,:Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. -19- 1 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes; H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 . Page 20 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-20/USE PERMIT NO. 84-23 (Appeal) Applicant: Charles H. Bollman (Continued from June 5, 1984) A request to permit an existing garage with Street access to satisfy parking requirements for an addition to a single-family dwelling with nonconforming yard at 308 Tenth Street. Michael Adams reported that a revised site plan has been received showing the temporary parking spaces to the rear of the storage tanks. The public hearing was opened. Charles Bollman was present to respond to any questions the Commission might have. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. The revisions were reviewed. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-20 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The rear one -half -of the subject property is encumbered by an oil operation and related structures. Therefore, because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, shape, location, and surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting'of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach." CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual site plan received and dated June 18, 1984, depict- ing a temporary parking space at the rear of the property,shall be the approved layout. 2. At the time the oil operation ceases to exist, permanent parking must be provided in compliance with Article 935. -20- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, ' 1984 Page 21 3. A review of Conditional Exception No. 84-20 shall occur five (5) years from date of approval to ascertain code compliance if the oil operation has been abandoned. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS USE PERMIT NO. 84-23 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS 1. By providing fire protection measures to the proposed project/property, the establishment, maintenance, and opera- tion 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 granting of A uge permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of land use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual site plan received and dated June 18, 1984 shall be the approved layout.- 2. The garage door,facing Tenth Street shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. 3.• Elevations shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A non-combustible roof shall be provided. .5. A two-hour fire resistive wall without openings shall be provided on the exposed side of the residence. 6. A residential automatic fire protection sprinkler system shall be installed in the dwelling or an approved fire pro- tection foam or inerting system shall be installed on the tank at the applicant's expense. -21- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 22 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO-. 84-15 Applicant: Robert and Donna Reid To permit a second unit to an existing single-family dwelling loc- cated at-19102 Mathew Circle. Michael Adams presented slides of the proposed 448 square foot addition. He indicated that the proposal provides a continuation of the existing roof line, has a separate entrance, and is archi- tecturally compatible with the dwelling. Commissioner Schumacher inquired if the flood protection program has been addressed in regard to this proposal, and questioned the possibility of future problems to the City if permits are granted which are not in compliance with the flood plain regulations. Staff, legal counsel, and the Commission discussed the implications of the matter, and Mike Adams reported that the federal government will check at some time in the future to ascertain if the City is monitoring the program properly. If not, the City might be penal- ized by being pulled out of the program. Staff will review the present proposal in relation to flood plain' elevations; in the meantime it was suggested that the project could be conditioned to comply. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that if the applicant should accept such a condition he would -in effect be waiving.his appeal rights, and discussion followed on a method of obtaining com- pliance and still protecting the applicant's appeal rights. The public hearing was opened. Robert Reid addressed the Commission and agreed to a condition re- quiring compliance with the flood plain regulations. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-15 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. -22- 6-19-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 23 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of land use. 4. THe granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Section 9101.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May 1, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall provide safety, energy, and conservation measures as required by Section 9101.3. 3. The addition shall comply with all applicable provisions of the ordinance code and Building Division, as well as with all requirements of the Flood Plain Program. 4. The 10-day appeal.period provided by code for this application shall not begin until such time as Development Sbrvices staff determines that the submitted plans cannot meet the Flood Plain requirements. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None. Livengood, Erskine,.Schumacher, ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-5 Applicant: Union Oil of California To permit a change of zone from C2 (Community Business District) to C2-SS (Community Business District with Service Station Suffix added) for property located at the northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue. Staff explained that the zone change is to fulfill a condition of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on Adminis- trative Review No. 83-85 for construction of the service station. The public hearing was opened and closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ZONE CHANGE NO. .84-5 WAS APPROVED WITH. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -23- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, g.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 24 FINDINGS: 1. A change of zone from C2, Community Business District, to C2-SS, Community Business District combined with Service Station Suffix, is consistent with the General Plan designation of gen- eral commercial. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding land uses. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-2 Applicant: DeGuelle & Sons Glass Company To permit the installation of a 20 foot high, 96 square foot area illuminated pole sign at the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and Alabama Street. Michael Adams reported that the proposed sign is intended for the use of all the tenants in the existing shopping complex and the request is for relief from the interior property line setback. The distance from the single-family homes on Lake Street is 60 feet. Staff is recommending approval with modifications to reduce the height of the sign from 20 to 15 feet with 7 feet ground clearance, reduce the height of the sign lettering to 16 inches, and require landscaping in the rear of the property where the sign will be loc- ated. In answer to Commissioner Higgins' inquiry, he said that the existing wall -painted signs will have to be brought into code conformance. The public hearing was opened. Jim De Guelle, owner of the property, spoke in support of his pro- posal, saying that. he would like to retain the 20 foot height for the sign and that loss of area to the landscaping would mean the loss of two parking spaces in the rear lot where parking is already a major problem. The landscaping would also, according to Mr. DeGuelle, pose a hazard to persons entering and leaving the lot. He also indicated that the sign lighting would be on a timer, set to go out at 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. Fred Western, 1218 Lake Street, addressed the Commission to oppose approval of the requested sign, citing adverse impacts to the Lake Street properties from the sign which would be visible from their back yards and reduced property values resulting from approval of the sign. The public hearing was closed. -24- 6-19-84 - P.C. I 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 25 Commissioner Erskine suggested the possibility of a compromise location for the sign, perhaps attaching it to the back of the store. Staff pointed out that if the applicant had not placed his sign within the setback he could erect the sign without the need for a special permit. The Commission discussed the pur- pose for the sign, the possibility of light spillage into neighboring yards., the benefits of landscaping versus loss of parking, and the size and height of the sign as requested. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-2.WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING: The proposed sign in the location and size requested will be detrimental to the residential property located in the vicinity. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. DISCUSSION ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 Applicant: World Oil Staff reported that a letter has been received from the Archi- tectural Design Group requesting a reconsideration of this previously denied application for a convenience market at an existing service station. New site plans have been submitted in an attempt to incorporate the Planning Commission's concerns into the design. A representative of the applicant addressed the Commission to explain changes to the plan in height of walls, additional landscaping to buffer the use from the adjacent residential, and the reduction of the drive -through from four ways around the building to just one way. The Commission discussed the revisions, but it was the consensus that the main issue'of incompatibility with the residential remained, and no action was taken to reconsider. -25- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 26 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Continued) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-12 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to permit fortunetelling within the C4 (Highway Commer- cial) District subject to the approval of an administrative review application. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak to the matter. Legal counsel explained that the City Council has passed an urgency ordinance and a moratorium to give staff time to provide criteria for allowing fortunetelling in the City. This code amendment is being processed in order to provide a means of control over such uses as they can no longer be absolutely prohibited in the community. The Commission discussed various locations in the City where these uses might go and the possible effects of establishing such a use. A special suffix was considered, as well as classifying them in the adult entertainment category. It -was the consensus that further study was needed; however, Mr. Folger explained that the court has already been informed that the City was taking action and any delay could result in the awarding of attorney fees against the City. The timing was reviewed and it was determined that postponement to the hearing of July 10 would not delay the process. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 10, 1984-TO ALLOW TIME FOR FURTHER STUDY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEM: HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB SITE: Planning staff reported that a condition required by the Coastal Commission had inadvertently been left out of the previously approved amendments for the Huntington Harbour Bay Club site. Staff is asking for review and report by the Commission. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITION FOR THE BAY CLUB SITE AND DIR- ECTED STAFF TO RECOMMEND ITS INCLUSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -26- 6-19-84 - P.C. 1 Minutesy H.B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 27 ADDITIONAL CONDITION: Prior to the transmittal of a permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Development Services a determination from the State Lands Commission that: a. No state lands and/or lands subject to the public trust are involved in the development and all necessary authorizations required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained: or b. State lands and/or lands subject to the public trust are in- volved in the development and all necessary authorizations required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained; of c. State lands or lands subject to the public trust may be in- volved in the development, but pending a final determination agreement has been made with the State Lands Commission for the project to proceed without prejudice to that determina- tion. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Due to the lateness of the hour, all other discussion, pending items, etc. on the Commission's agenda were continued to the meeting of July 10, 1984. The Commission adjourned at 1:00 a.m. to July 10, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. :df Marcus M. Porter, a rman -27- 6-19-84 - P.C.