Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-16APPROVED 11-27-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Tuesday, October 16, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livenggod, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 WERE APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Commissioner Livengood reported that on a recent visit to Old World the facility was somewhat in the dark. He reported seeing a young man urinating behind a tree, several people extremely intoxicated and no security force. He stated concern due to the fact that this is a residential area. Chairman Porter directed staff to include in the next report the security measures that were being taken. Commissioner Schumacher stated that when she voted for approval on Garfields Nite Spot she and other Planning Commissioner's were misled by Garfields. She said that the original staff report stated that the club expected 35 to 45 people and now Garfields indicated that they meant 35 to 45 age group. She went on to request that the City Council be informed that the Planning Commission and staff was under this misconception when the Use Permit was approved. Commissioner Winchell requested that a report be sent to the Council that includes the original staff report with 35 - 45 people underlined, the applicant's letter indicating 35 - 45 people, and a copy of the building permit which was issued after the Planning Commission approval with the date underlined. Glen Godfrey reported that it is on the Council agenda in 60 days and that staff is working with Garfields to try to minimize the adverse impacts. He went on to state that Development Services will be reporting back to the Council with an interim report in 30 days. Chairman Porter requested that in the report to Council, staff could include the Planning Commissioner's feelings. Commissioner Winchell stated that possibly there is a need for amending the zoning ordinance to tighten up regulations. Glen Godfrey responded that current regulations require Conditional Use Permit approval for night clubs and dancing establishments. Commissioner Schumacher stated that City Councilman Pattinson pointed out at their October 15, 1984 meeting that Garfields had not gone against their conditions of approval. She went on to state that she wanted the Council to understand why the Commission approved this request. All Commissioner's were in agreement. ITEM D-2 - TALBERT GAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: The public hearing was opened: Chauncy Alexander of the Flood Prevention Group made a presentation against the project. His main points were as follows: The Redevelopment Plan is presented for action under the deadline pressure of January 1, 1984. No citizen participation was obtained in the creation of the plan. No specific financial or tax data has been supplied to date. No consideration or action relative to the FPG alternative plans and proposals has been taken. The freezing of the taxes at the 1984 rate means that inevitably all Huntington Beach residents will have either diminished services or increased fees and assessments . Planning with other governmental jurisdictions has been inadequate in terms of timing and supplying of information. The Plan is not fair as it does not include all property owners subject to or contributing to flooding by the Talbert Valley Channels. The Plan is not fair because the financing will be borne by the few citizens immediately adjacent to the Talbert Valley Channels. The dollar costs far exceed the verbal and published reports and there is no reference to interest costs. Mr. Alexander recommended that the Planning Commission reject the current Talbert Gap Redevelopment Plan and reorganize and refile under the provisions of the "blighted public services". Adopt the FPG strategy to obtain immediate financing of flood control measures through City, County and State allocations that could be negotiated as credits against required expenditures in the Santa Ana Mainstem Project. Reallocate existing City revenues by the same amount as proposed in the Plan. If the total funds are not immediately available, the City Council could create a city-wide assessment; and/or reallocated Federal revenue -sharing moneys for this project; and/or issue a General Obligation Bond to provide financing. (1376d) -2- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Chairman Porter asked why north Huntington Beach residents should be assessed for flood control in the southeast end of town. Mr. Alexander responded that the flood disaster affects every citizen and the majority of Huntington Beach needs proper flood control measures. Chairman Porter asked why the Flood Prevention Group feels General Obligation Bonds are more acceptable than Revenue Bonds. Mr. Alexander responded that it would not allow for the specific project area. The City should use its money leverage to get money from the County. From $38 to $S5 million to complete the redevelopment work on the channel would require joint efforts of government. The County now has $22 million reserved for flood control measures. We need to convince the County to spend the money now. There is a matching requirement that the government is negotiating on at this time. Chairman Porter asked if the Federal matching requirement is for the main channels and the feeder channels. Mr. Alexander responded that the Huntington Beach channels are in the Santa Ana mainstream project. The County is setting aside money now which is designed to match City funds. The point is that we are endangered more everyday. All the water from the rest of the County is coming this way. We believe that if we had aggressive leadership, we could do more. Four million dollars in the county has been allocated for the holding basin at Bartlett Park and Edison right-of-way. Therefore, if the City put money its where its mouth is, it could begin tomorrow to repair these channels. The advantage is the credit the City would get for the Santa Ana mainstream. Commissioner Schumacher stated disagreement with Chairman Porter stating that she felt all citizens of Huntington Beach should share in the cost of the flood control repairs. Corinne Welch, secretary for the Flood Prevention Group, spoke against t e project. She stated that by trying to get the project passed in such a short time there has not been ample time for the people to review the terminology. She said that she was frightened after reading this plan as the plan is full of loop holes and contradictions and can be changed by amendment process. Sherry Passmore, from the Committee of Citizens on Property Rights, spoke against the project. She stated that there are many detrimental effects of the State Redevelopment Law. Three of the worst areas of abuse are financial, the loss of a constitutional form of government and the infringements on private property rights. In order for a Community Redevelopment Agency to financially function, it must keep its taxpayers in debt. Redevelopment uses Tax Increment financing which results in reduced tax bases for cities, counties, schools, police and fire departments, etc. Sally Alexander spoke against the plan. She stated that the main issue as far as water has not been addressed by the City. The flood control channels would not be sufficient for another March 1983 flood. The Bartlett Park retarding basin would be another two years before completion. (1376d) -3- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Dorothy Sh rock spoke against the plan. She stated concern that at the first presentation to the citizens of Huntington Beach Ms. Webb mentioned several times that there would be no eminent domain. The next time we heard from Ms. Webb, we were told that these pages would be removed; however, two pages are still left in. She stated that all pages regarding eminent domain should be taken out of the plan. HenryBohrman spoke against the plan. He stated that he had critiqued the plan and that the plan as written will cause problems later on. He indicated pages where there were inconsistencies which need to be corrected before sending it on to the City Council. Clauncy Yoder spoke in favor of the plan. He indicated that any article can be analyzed to make specific points. The City does not have the budget as Mr. Alexander requested to match the County's five million dollar funds. The County and the City of Huntington Beach have been working very closely in the last two years, and has received over eleven million dollars from the County that went into the Slater channel. He stated agreement with the Alexander's that the channels are over taxed, however, we need redevelopment. He recommended that we have a time limit on this to get this project going and that we work together as a team. Florence Webb made the staff presentation. Her main points were as follows: This plan has been drastically modified as a result of public meetings with the property owners. Legal Council has advised staff of specific language to be used in the plan even though later in the plan state that we will not do these specific things (such as eminent domain). This is a legal document and is not easy to read but is required by law. We have removed all areas of citizen concern that were possible to remove. On October 4, 1984 the Planning Staff held a public hearing to obtain citizen's concerns to the plan. Nine thousand notices were mailed to property owners, tenants and businesses and 100 people were in attendance at the meeting. At that meeting, staff asked if the people wanted additional meetings and no one expressed an interest. Florence Webb indicated that many modifications to the plan have been made. She stated that as of January 1, flooding will not be a condition of blight. Notices have been sent to all taxing agencies putting them on notice that the City is proposing the two project areas and asking them to contact us if they have concerns. She further stated that the Redevelopment Plans will not affect the school districts and that they are in support of the Plan. Chairman Porter stated that the reason the schools are not concerned is because the revenue will be made up from the State. He went on to say that the schools are paid for each student based on daily attendance. Florence Webb stated that the channels are the responsibility of the County and the storm drains and pumping stations are the (1376d) -4- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 responsibility of the City. The proposed improvement cost is as follows: Storm Drains 3,640,000 Pumping Stations 4,250,000 Drainage Channel 37,180,000 City Contribution 99300,000 Contingencies Escalation 2,580,000 Project Cost 19,770,000 Administration 400,000 Low & Moderate Housing 5,042,000 Total Cost 25,210,000 Florence Webb indicated that Katz Hollis, financial consultant for this project has performed a report for tax increment and that the City's Finance Department has determined that the figures are very conservative. The FY estimated net tax increment is $578,000; FY 90-91 is $2,270,000; FY 95-96 is $3,440,000. She went on to state that the impact to the general fund, in the worst case situation, is $14,000,000 over a 20 year period. She indicated that the City does not propose to do all of the things listed in the plan. She stated that there would be a budget and that the budget would be dictated by the increment received. Commissioner Livengood stated that the project is costing $25,000,000 and that the city would be generating $63,000,000. He questioned what the total package cost would be. Florence Webb responded that the cost would be $80,000,000 after servicing the bonds. Commissioner Livengood stated that it appears that the budget is $17,000,000 short of target. He further stated that there would be a loss to the general fund of $14,000,000. He went on to say that the project only addresses one of the problem areas in the City. He questioned if the $25,000,000 would provide flood protection to cover a one hundred year flood. Florence Webb responded that it covers a one hundred year storm. Bill Patapoff from the City Public Works Department stated that we have funds allocated to repair Murdy Channel; however, there are no other funds available at this time. Commissioner Winchell indicated that the $14,000,000 loss to the general fund does not include interest. She stated that the Plan cost of $25,000,000 would result in $80,000,000; therefore, the $14,000,000 loss should include interest. Commissioner Higgins stated concern because the project cost is 20% more than it should be due to the 20% for low and moderate housing. Florence Webb stated that bonds don't have to be used. Improvements (1376d) -5- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 could be made as money becomes available and this would eliminate the interest charges; however it would take many years to make the improvements. Commissioner Livengood requested that the loss to the general fund of $14,000;000 be included in the report to the City Council. He went on to say that if any other redevelopment project that has already been approved is a loss, the City would be in very serious trouble. Commissioner Mirjahangir questioned the position the County is taking. Florence Webb responded that the County has obligated $37,000,000 for construction cost. Glen Godfrey stated that the City Redevelopment Agency would not try to fund a budget that they could not fund. He went on to say that the City could phase in the projects by prioritizing needed improvements. He went on to say that the monies that would flow to the general fund are made in the capital improvement budget and that the City is stating that allocation of monies from the general fund for flood control. Commissioner Livengood stated that the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council to carefully review the proposed Redevelopment Plan and that the Planning Commission does not support the Plan. Chairman Porter questioned what would be the consequence of not approving the Plan. Legal Council, Art Folger, indicated that if the Planning Commission does not approve the Plan, it would require a 2/3 vote by the City Council. Chairman Porter stated that one of the real problems with the Plan is that there are many contradictions in the Plan. He went on to say that one paragraph leads off stating one thing and later states something else. Florence Webb responded that in these cases the Plan is fulfilling the required statements for Redevelopment Law. Legal Council, Art Folger, commented that Redevelopment Law requires specific language be in the Plan. He said that regarding the issue of Eminent Domain; the City has the power with or without redevelopment. Chairman Porter suggested that the Plan be clarified to indicate all sections where statements are included to satisify Redevelopment Law. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she could not support the Talbert Gap Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Plan can be amended by future governing bodies. 2. Representatives from Public Works indicated that this is not the only flood control channel in need of repair. She stated concern that the County might not share in the expense of repairs to other channel repair projects. 3. Work with the citizens to demand that the County, State and Federal levels support the flood control projects. Commissioner Livengood stated one of his concerns is that the project is costing $55,000,000 in interest for bond cost for a net result of $20,000,000 in improvements to flood control channels. He went on to state that the formula does not work. Commissioner Erskine stated agreement with Commissioners Schumacher and Livengood. He went on to (1376d) -6- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 say that Redevelopment is just one tool that can be used to fund this type of project. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1334 AS REVISED TO NOT ADOPT THE TALBERT GAP REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE A LIST OF FINDINGS AS TO THE REASONS FOR THE ACTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Legal Council, Art Folger, stated that the Planning Commission should not approve the Plan instead of changing the resolution. Commissioner Livengood stated that included in the findings should be accurate figures of the project cost and the loss to the general fund of $14,000,000; the Plan will strain the relationship between other governing bodies; and Redevelopment was not designed for a Public Works project and should not be used to generate revenue. He further stated that we are not addressing the flood control problems City-wide and that this project could affect the potential possibility of doing necessary flood control projects in other parts of the City. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM C - 3 LAND USE AMENDMENT No. 84-2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 84-3 The amendment addresses two administrative items as requested by the City and three proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Diagram as requested by the City and private property owners. Hal Simmons presented staff presentation on the following items: Item 2.1 is a request that a Solid Waste Facility land use designation eb created in order to satisfy recent State legislation regarding the siting of solid waste facilities and make a finding of consistency with the general plan. Item 2.2 is a request that policy language be added to the Land Use Element to meet the requirement of State law which provides that local general plans be consistent with the County Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The public hearing was opened on items 2.1 and 2.2. No one was present to speak for or against the items, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter called for a straw vote on these items and motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (1376d) -7- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Item 3.1 is a request to redesignate 4.65 acres located west of NicT iTo�s Street and south of Warner from General Industrial to Solid Waste Facility. Item 3.2 is a request to redesignate 10.4 acres located west of agno is Street from General Commercial to Mixed Development. Item 3.3 is a request to redesignate 3.0 acres located east of Bolsa ii'ca treet and south of Pearce Street from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. Commissioner Livengood stated that on item 3.1 the Department of Health Services has expressed concern over the noise to residents in this area. Hal Simmons responded that this is an approved facility right now. The public hearing was opened on item 3.1. No one was present to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher stated that the proposed change in land use designation was to facility and use which is already there. She went on to say that although we are now going to address the noise issue it is too late to mitigate it. Hal Simmons responded that we could require a noise study. Chairman Porter called for a straw vote on 3.3 thru 3.3 adding a section on noise analysis effect on residential in the area and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 3.2/Zone Case 84-10 is a request to redesignate 10.4 acres located west of Magnolia Street from General Commercial to Mixed Development. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Guggenheim, the developer was present. He stated that the request for General Plan Amendment zone change from R5 to R 3 M1A in order to develop 152 apartment units and 120 self storage spaces. He said that the current zoning is (Q) R5, Qualified, Office Professional. The owners of this property have attempted to market the property but have had difficulty due to the poor visibility of the site and the surplus of office space in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. He went on to say that the project has attempted to design in a buffer, security, and a minimum of traffic for the adjacent residents. Mr. Hoelscher representing the applicant stated that the architecture is a timeless design and landscape plan is superior to most apartment complexes. He went on to say that they have contracted with Linkletter Incorporated to design and manage the self storage units. Kevin Mulhulland addressed the Commission and stated his entire property borders the subject parcels. He further stated concern over the increase in traffic and potential increase in crime. He stated that his decision to purchase in that area, was due to the seclusion, and now this project would put a 10 ft. high wall with sirens, alarms (1376d) -8- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 and lights on the property line. Michael Johnson who lives in this neighborhood stated that the majority of home owners support this project; however, there is concern regarding the required fire gate. Mr. Shimohara; one of the owners of S & K Greenhouse, stated that they have tried to sell the property as a commercial site since 1981. He said that they have worked with planning staff and residents with various alternatives and have concluded that this is the best project for the site. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood stated that if this was approved it would be for the Zone Change and the project would come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Higgins stated that he would favor the project as he agreed with the applicant that this area should not compete with the primary commercial/office area on Beach Blvd. Chairman Porter questions whether it is permissible to change to "Q" at the meeting without readvertising. Legal Council, Art Folger, responded because it is more restrictive that it would be fine. Mike Adams indicated that staff would require time, in order to come up with "Q" conditions for the Commission's review. Chairman Porter called for a straw vote to redesignate from General Commercial to Mixed Development, and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 3.3/Zone Change No. 84-9 is a request to redesignate 3.0 acres located east of Bolsa C ica Street and south of Pearce Street from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Appleget, a resident in the area was present to address the Commission. He stated concern about the consistency of the project with the surrounding zoning and the possibility of reducing the value of the surrounding property. He went on to say that he opposed the change to General Commercial. Ken Moody, the applicant was present. He stated that the proposal has addressed the neighbors concerns. Bob Curtis, one of the owners of the property, addressed the Commission. He stated that retail would be much more appropriate and would minimize impacts to the residents. There were no other persons to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood stated concern that the tract is between two commercial areas. Brief Commission discussion ensued. Chairman Porter called for a straw vote to approve Item 3.3 and the motion carried by the following vote: (1376d) -9- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood stated that he would like to see something to buffer the residential area. Commissioner Schumacher stated that we could go over these items when the project comes to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Higgins suggested that the following conditions be added, Conditional Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission; residential to be buffered; prohibit access to Pearce street; preserve existing trees; and future development of the site to be designed in conjunction with adjacent property. Chairman Porter asked Mr. Moody if he agreed with the conditions. Mr. Moody responded, after some clarification, that he was in agreement. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS EIR 84-3 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESOLUTION N0, 1111 WAS APPROVED WITH ADDITION OF OF ITEM 5 REDESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF MAGNOLIA AND WARNER FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED DEVELOPMENT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-9 WAS APPROVED TO REDESIGNATE 3.0 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND SOUTH OF PEARCE TO C-4 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Any future development will be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 2. The proposed development shall be designed so that the building orientation is compatible with the adjacent residential areas. 3. The proposed development shall not ingress or egress on to Pearce Street. 4. The proposed development shall preserve the existing mature trees on site to the greatest extent possible. (1376d) -10- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 5. Any future development of this site shall be designed in conjunction with the adjacent property zoned C4 to the south. FINDINGS: 1. The C4 zoning is consistent with the recommended commercial designation in Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-2. 2. Rezoning the site to accommodate commercial uses would be compatible with surrounding land uses. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE 84-10 WAS APPROVED TO DESIGNATE QM1A AND R3 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF THE "Q": 1. Any future development will be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 2. At the time of development the project shall be required to cover the flood control channel between Magnolia Street and Warner Avenues. 3. The proposed project shall be designed and laid out to be compatible with the adjacent single family residential tract to the west. 4. The project entrance off Magnolia Street shall be designed to City standards and compatible with the adjacent commercial center to the south. 5. The project shall address the closure of Conner Drive to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Department. 6. The area zoned MI -A shall be limited to mini -storage uses. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The R3 and M1-A zoning would be consistent with the mixed use designation in Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-2. 2. Rezoning the site to accommodate apartments and mini -warehouses would be compatible with surrounding land uses. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (1376d) -11- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 ITEM C-1 USE PERMIT NO. 84-68 (APPEAL) Applicant: Robert J. Koury Use Permit 84-68 is a request to permit a convenience market in a vacant building: The Board of Zoning Adjustments denied this request on September 12, 1984 and this denial has been appealed. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Bame, the appellant was present to address the Commission. He stated that the building was built for a savings and loan and was never used. He said that the proposed use meets the requirement of the Downtown Specific Plan. He submitted petitions signed by residents stating approval of the market. Carl Gero, of the Community Bible Church, addressed the Commission. He stated he was opposed to the market if they would be selling alcohol. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Glen Godfrey stated that at the Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing there were many residents who opposed the project. He went on to say that the BZA Board was concerned that people might congregate at the site late at night. The Commission discussed restricting the sale of liquor. Art Folger, legal council, recommended that the Planning Commission could limit the Use Permit to the sale of beer and wine. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 84-68 WAS APPROVED WITH AMENDED AND ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting against the proposal because the hours of operation should be restricted. Commissioner Winchell requested that we add to the motion limiting the hours to 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM. The motion was amended to include the restricted hours of operation. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: 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. 4. The proposed use will be an interim use of the site. (1376d) -12- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated August 9, 1984 shall be revised and resubmitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Two additional on -site parking spaces. 2. In lieu of providing additional on -site parking, the property owner shall enter into parking agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. A copy of said agreement shall be submitted to Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating Lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 Block 504 of Huntington Beach Tract. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection or occupancy. 4. Pursuant to S.4.8.08 of the Downtown Specific Plan District 6, additional right-of-way dedication may be required for alley purposes. S. At such time adjacent parcels are developed in accord with a redevelopment plan or in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan, driveway access to this site may be required to be modified so as to be compatible with such future development. An agreement to that effect shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of Building Permits. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. This approval is an interim use until redevelopment of the subject site and subject to review at 5 years, in order for the use to continue. 8. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. 9. Sale of alcoholic beverage is limited to beer and wine. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM C-2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. A justments Applicant: Malcolm Sperling 84-55 (referred by Board of Zoni Conditional Exception No. 84-55 is a request to allow an existing patio cover structure to encroach 7 ft. into the 15 ft. front yard setback. This application was referred to the Planning Commission after failing to receive a majority vote of approval or disapproval from the Board of Zoning Adjustments. (1376d) -13- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 The public hearing was opened. Malcolm Sperling, owner of the property; addressed the commission. He stated that his problem came about due to an error by his landscape architect. He said that when they applied for building permit, they were advised that it was a good project. He stated that when the house was originally built it was designed with two driveways. He went on to say that if the driveway was taken out it would tear up the landscaping that was just put in. He indicated that he could move the patio but it would be very expensive. He concluded by stating that his neighbors had signed a petition stating their support of his project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins stated that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation for approval; however, requested that finding number 1 be omitted. Commissioner Livengood stated agreement and added that he drove by the property and the improvements look good. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-55 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Findings of Approval: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-55 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 2. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed project is proposing a 7 ft. encroachment and is minimal. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C-4 ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-37/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-36 Applicant: John A. Thomas Crane & Trucking Zone Change No. 84-16 is a request to rezone 5.23+ acres of property to add the -01 suffix to the existing base zoning districts of the property. The change would allow the establishment of an oil operations site to include the drilling of new oil wells and related activities. The public hearing was opened. Glen Godfrey stated that Mr. Thomas had telephoned and advised him that he would not be able to attend the meeting. There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. (1376d) -14- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Commissioner Winchell questioned if conditions are being enforced as to screening and also what can be stored on the land. Mike Adams responded that the last inspection was 8 to 9 months ago and the conditions were being followed. Commissioner Schumacher recommended that we could condition the Use Permit or Zone Change for fencing. Chairman Porter recommended that the telephone poles be removed. Chairman Porter directed staff to require a Use Permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-36 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-16 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property as general industrial, which is consistent with the requested zoning designations of M1-01-CD, M1-A-01-CD, and M1-01. 2. Oil production on the site will be compatible with surrounding land uses. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM C-5 ZONE CHANGE 84-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-37 Applicant: G. P. Building Enterprises Zone change No. 84-17 is a request to change the zoning from R5, Office -Professional to R3, Medium -High Density Residential. The public hearing was opened: Robert Michelson, representing G. P. Building Enterprises, addressed the Commission and stated agreement with staff report. He requested that condition numbers 3 and 4 be removed. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood recommended that condition number 3 be changed to as follows: subject to review by the Department of (1376d) -15- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Development Services. He also recommended that condition number 4 be eliminated. Commissioner Schumacher stated that the project is not compatible with the zoning district as the proposed project exceeds 50% lot coverage. Commissioner Mirjahangir said that the building could be turned to get below the 500 lot coverage. Chairman Porter said that he agrees with Commissioner Schumacher that this project is too intense for this area. Commissioner Higgins stated he was against the project as the units should have more individuality. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-17 WAS MADE FOR APPROVAL AS QUALIFIED; WHICH FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Mirjahangir, Livengood NOES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter asked Art Folger, Legal Council, if an additional motion for denial was necessary. Mr. Folger stated that the Commissions first motion was sufficient for Zone Change denial. Item D-1 HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Commissioner Erskine suggested that the balance of the agenda be continued to the next regular meeting as it is well past the normal curfew time of 11:00 P.M. Chairman Porter stated that action must be taken on Resolution No. 1335. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN AND RESOLUTION NO. 1334 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Commissioner Livengood recommended that there should be a finding that states the City has also made a strong commitment to revitalize underutilezed and deteriorating commercial areas. The Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan is designed to improve the utilization of prime commercial property near Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue and to alleviate problems of traffic circulation and access which are preventing the area from attaining its full potential. Commission Livengood questioned whether publicly owned parking facility will remain in the Plan. Florence Webb responded that staff was advised by outside legal council to leave this as it is. She went on to say that the developer already has the power to build a parking structure on his property. Commissioner Livengood stated that he was concerned about this wording; however, with that explanation he would go along with it. Ayes: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir Noes: None Absent: Schumacher (out of room) Abstain: None (1376d) -16- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84 Item D-2 RE UEST TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO COVER ON PROPERTY CURREM'Ll ULCUPIED BY A NONCONFORMING AUTO ARD Applicant: Huntington Beach Auto Dismantling This is a request to permit the construction of a 24 foot by 42 foot sun shade cover. Due to a change in the zoning, from Ml, Light Industrial to M1-A, Restricted Manufacturing, the use of the property as auto dismantling yard is considered nonconforming. The public hearing was opened: Mr. Weatherly, owner of the property addressed the Commission. He indicated that the property is fully enclosed. He said that the patio cover will protect valuable inventory and also that it can not be seen from the street. There were no other persons to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. Brief Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO COVER WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Ayes: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Item F-2 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-18 Submitted for the Planning Commission's review was a revised site lan for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-15 (submitted by Humana Hospital for -the integrated medical complex depicting reciprocal parking and ingress/egress. This revision will no longer require a Conditional Exception for reduction in parking. No action was required. ADJOURNMENT: There was no further business and the Commission adjourned at 1:10 AM. iarcus M. Porter, irman jr (1376d) -17- P.C. Minutes 10-16-84