Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-16APPROVED MAY 71 1985 MINUTES PUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 161 1985 - 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, rs ne, Porter, r ahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on March 19, 1985. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE MARCH 19, 1985 PLANNING'COMMI§SION MINUTES WERE APPROVED. (6 AYES 0 NOES ERSKINE ABSTAIN) A-2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on April 2, 1985 ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE APRIL 2, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WERE APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS. (7 AYES 0 NOES) A-3 General Plan Conformance 85-1 (Capital Improvements Plan 85-86) Commission and staff discussion ensued. A few questions were raised by the'Commission and.answered by staff. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 85-1 WAS APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir, tivengood NOES:. None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Jim Knowles asked -the Commission if the Huntington Shores Relocation AssistahC6':Plan was open to a public hearing. Chairman Livengood stated yes. Mr. Knowles stated that he would hold his comments until then. C-1 HUNTINGTON SHORES MOBILEHOME PARK RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN (RESOLUTION NO. 1338) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Hal Simmons of staff stated that at the April 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, concern was expressed that the alternative to the Relocation"Assistance Plan dated November 8, 1985, involving a payment to the City of $250,000 for use in developing a Relocation Park was not adequately defined by the Letter of Agreement between the Huntington Beach Company and the Huntington Beach City Administrator. The Commission was also concerned that the findings for approval of the Relocation Plan were not specific enough. Staff and the applicant have attempted to address the Planning Commission's concerns. On April 8, The Huntington Beach Company submitted a revised Relocation Plan which incorporates the contents of the agreement into the plan as the preferred form of assistance to be provided. Staff has prepared two alternative resolutions; Resolution A which indicates the agreement last as the Planning Commission requested, and Resolution B which indicates the agreement first. Since the new Relocation Plan also lists the agreement first, staff recommends approval of Resolution B. Hal stated that the staff reports also contain expanded Findings for Approval. The Findings identify the standards for assistance contained in the ordinance code and explain how the Relocation Plan complies. Also, three additional conditions of approval which require•that the Huntington Beach Company notify the coach owners of approval of the Relocation Plan and the agreement between them and the City Council when that is finally approved. The last Condition releases the Huntington Beach Company from any responsibility for providing assistance to those who don't vacate the park by April 1, 1986 Commissioner Schumacher asked staff how they arrived at the $250,000 cost. Hal Simmons of staff, stated that the applicant estimated what it would cost to purchase all the coaches in the mobilehome park. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if the same deal was going to be made_with every mobilehome park in the city. Secretary Palin stated no, that this park is the only one to date within a redevelopment project area that has been noticed for closure. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if there is another project of this type in a redevelopment area we have to offer the same benefits. Secretary Palin stated no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Roger Work, representative for the Huntington Beach Company, stated that the company was in concurrence with staff's recommended changes, adding that either resolution 1338(a) or 1338(b) was acceptable. Commissioner Livengood asked the representative if he had seen the new proposed conditions. Mr. Work stated that these were acceptable. (2360d) -2- P.C. April 16, 1985 Jim Knowles, representative for Huntington Beach Mobilehome Owners Council expressed several concerns. He asked staff if an individual coach is not relocatable even to the shelter, would these homeowners be offered a new home set up within the shelter park? He also stated some concerns with the findings presented by staff. He stated that his main concern was that the procedure for proper notice of intent to close the park had not followed correctly. There -were on other persons to speak for against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine asked the City Attorney if the proper notice of intent to close was legal. Art Folger, City Attorney, stated that the notice was proper, and all provisions of the civil code and the Huntington Beach Code were complied with. Chairman Livengood requested clarification of the intent of the Ordinance on depreciation of the coaches if it was based on the date the coach was purchased or the date of the notification of intent to close. Hal Simmons of staff, stated that it would begin on the date of purchase of the coach by the mobilehome owner and expire on the date of issuance of the notice of intent to close the park. In this case the official notice -of intent is October 1, 1983. Commissioner Winchell stated that finding no. 3 was not clear. Staff stated that they would amend this. Chairman Livengood requested that the change to finding no. 3 be reflected in the resolution. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if the coaches that have been moved out by the Huntington Beach Company, at their expense, been deducted from the $250,000. Hal Simmons of staff stated no, that it does not involve the people or coaches that they bought out previously. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if that could be stated in the resolution. Hal stated that they would amend the resolution to reflect this suggestion. Commissioner Erskine stated that Article 927 establishes standards for a relocation plan and those standards should therefore be stated first in the resolution and that any deviation from or alternative to those standards should be listed last in the resolution. For this reason Commissioner Erskine preferred Resolution A. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER RESOLUTION NO. 1338(A) HUNTINGTON SHORES RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN BE APPROVED WITH AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (2360d) -3- P.C. April 16, 1985 Findings for Approval: 1. Section 9270.4 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that a Relocation Assistance Plan be submitted by the applicant and be found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 2. Section 9270.5(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that all eligible mobilehome owners are entitled to receive the cost of relocating to another mobilehome park within 50 miles of the City. 3. Section 9270.5(b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provides that if a replacement space cannot be found, that the mobilehome and optional equipment be purchased by the applicant at the mobilehome owners original purchase price minus an amount determined by depreciating the price at a rate of 4.7 percent per year from the date of purchase to the date of issuance of notice of intent to change use, with a minimum buyout of $4,500. 4. Section 9270.5(d) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provides that the applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modify the standards and methods of assistance. 5. The Huntington Shores Relocation Assistance Plan proposes assistance which meets or exceeds the provisions of Sections 9270.5(a) and 9270.5(b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 6. The Huntington Shores Relocation Assistance Plan -includes an option for contribution to development of a Relocation Park, and the option constitutes modification of the standards and methods of assistance as allowed by Section 9270.5(d) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7. The Planning Commission has previously approved the Impact of Conversion Report for Huntington Shores Mobilehome Park as required by Section 9270.5(f) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 8. Proper notice of intent to close the park was given by the applicant on October 1, 1983. 9. All requirements for public hearing on the Impact of Conversion Report and Relocation Assistance Plan have been adhered to. 10. The Huntington Shores Relocation Assistance Plan has been properly prepared, advertised, reviewed at a public hearing and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission after comparing it against the standards for such plan as contained in Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and approved by Resolution. (2360d) -4- P.C. April 16, 1985 Conditions: 1. The Huntington Beach Company shall submit copies of the signed Mutual Termination Agreements for each of the mobile homes covered by the plan upon their removal from the park. 2. The Huntington Beach Company shall extend the scheduled date of park closure for Huntington Shores Mobilehome Park from October 1, 1985 to April 1, 1986. 3. Within 10 days of the Planning Commission's approval, a copy of Resolution No. 1338, the Relocation Assistance Plan, and the Conditions of Approval shall be submitted by the Huntington Beach Company by Certified Mail to the coach owners. The letter shall further notify the coach owners of the scheduled April 1, 1986 park closure date. 4. Within 15 days of the City Council's action on an agreement between the City and the Huntington Beach Company for contribution of funds for development of a relocation park, the Huntington Beach Company shall notify the coach owners by Certified Mail of the nature of the agreement. 5. Contingent upon successful completion of the notification requirements contained in Conditions 3 and 4 above, the Huntington Beach Company shall not be required to provide relocation assistance to any residents who do•not vacate the park on or before April 1, 1986. C-2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10414, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-01, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: Robert D. Mickelson At the April 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting Tentative Tract Map No. 10414 and Conditional Exception No. 85-01 were continued in order for the applicant to submit a Coastal Development Permit application for review in conjunction with these two entitlements. The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program was recently certified by the California Coastal Commission, which now enables the City to issue Coastal Development Permits for certain projects within the coastal zone. Tentative -Tract Map No. 10414 and Conditional Exception No. 85-01 are within the coastal zone and therefore require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Tentative Tract Map No. 10414 is a request to subdivide a 1.27 acre site on the north side of Los Patos between Sims and Lynn Street into six lots for the purpose of constructing four single family residences and Conditional Exception No. 85-01 is a request to permit a four foot reduction from the minimum 45 foot wide frontage requirement for the subdivision. Coastal Development Permit No. 85-1 is required because the subject property is within the coastal zone in a non -appealable area. (2360d) -5- P.C. April 16, 1985 Non -appealable areas include all land inside the coastal zone but lying inland from the appeal jurisdiction. Projects within non - appealable areas may be appealed to the City Council but not to the California Coastal Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: There were no persons to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff to explain the revisions made to the original plan. Mike Adams stated that the blue border on the map was made to include the additional lot which has an existing single family home on it and the reason to include this is in order to have an access for drainage. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10414, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-01 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-1 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Amended Findings for Approval - Tentative Tract Map No. 10414 and Conditional Exception No. 85-01: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and topography of the subject property, there does appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property which do not apply generally to property in the same zone. The site is 1.27 acres in size and only has a 41 feet wide street frontage which is unique for the Los Patos area. 2. Since the subject property cannot be fully developed within regular zoning standards, Conditional Exception No. 85-01 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-01 will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 4. Conditional Exception No. 85-01 is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and will not result in any modification to the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. The proposed project is compatible with, and will not have an adverse impact upon, surrounding land uses. (2360d) -6- P.C. April 16, 1985 n �1 6. Lot depth, size, and design, together with all other subdivision improvement designs are consistent with City standards, plans and specifications as well as the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Amended and Additional Conditions of A roval - Tentative Tract Ma o. 10414 and Conditional Exception No. - 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 10414 received and dated April 8, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. Los Patos Avenue shall be dedicated and improved to the ultimate right-of-way. 3. The private street entrance shall be per Public Works Department Standards, and not a residential driveway. 4. 5. The pavement width (not including curb and gutter), for the private street shall not be less than 25 feet. A 2% cross slope is required on the private street. Prior to the installation of a security gate, approval must be obtained from the Public Works, Fire and Development Services Departments. 6. Drainage, water, and sewer systems for the subdivision shall be constructed per Public Works Standards and shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Development Services Department prior to approval of a grading plan and/or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs sooner. The sewer and drainage systems shall be private and the water system shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. Hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. 7. Proof of the 10 foot wide drainage easement to Lynn Street shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to final map recordation. 8. No parking will be marked on the private street and shall be designated to comply with Fire Department Standard #415. 9. Entry gate and lanes with median to comply with Fire Department Standard #403 a. Entry gate to be minimum 24 feet clear width. b. Fourteen feet travel lanes on each side of median. c. . Median to be located 30 feet back from street. 10. Fire hydrants will be required at the new street entry and at the cul-de-sac. 11. New street name to comply with Fire Department Standard #409. (2360d) -7- P.C. April 16, 1985 12. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit an updated report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the project property prior to the issuance of building permits.. 13. All structures proposed for construction within this subdivision shall be constructed*in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geglogist's report. 14. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 16. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers, and natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 17. A title search of the subject property shall be submitted for verification that there are no easements or other encumbrances traversing any of the parcels prior to final map recordation. 18. CC&R's shall be submitted and reviewed by the Development Services Director prior to final map recordation. 19. Any combination of retaining wall and fence over 6 feet in height along the northern perimeter property line of the project shall be designed with decorative block approved by the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of building permits. Any combination of retaining wall and fence exceeding 8 feet in height along the perimeter of the subject property shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Exception. Findings for Approval — Coastal.Development Permit No. 85-1: 1. The proposed six lot subdivision is consistent with the City's Coastal zone suffix and the R1 District Standard except as provided for in Conditional Exception No. 85-1 as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. (2360d) -8- P.C. April 16, 1985 3. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The subject property is 4,000 feet from the coastline and is not adjacent to any coastal related open space; therefore neither verticle nor lateral access are necessary. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-12 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation Conditional Use Permit No. 85-12 is a request to modify the approved development plan for Charter Center by reducing a 6-story 75,000 square foot office building to a 21,500 square foot commercial building. The new building will consist of 16,500 square feet of ground floor commercial with 4,000 square feet of loft area commercial. Also included in the request is 5,000 square feet of restaurant use. The second aspect of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow a helipad atop the 14-story office building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Frank Mola, applicant, stated that they agree with all of the modifications and amendments. Commissioner Schumacher asked Mr. Mola what type of retail uses he was anticipating. Mr. Mola stated that a restaurant was located at the end of the building and then other businesses such as real estate, computer retail outlets basically these types of office uses. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood stated that he date of operation for the helipad he would be agreeable with Monday between 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. would like to see the time and specified. Mr. Mola stated that through Friday and on Saturdays Commissioner Rowe asked staff if this is an absolute ban of 5 flights per day. Staff stated that this was the maximum unless there is an emergency. Commissioner Rowe asked what provisions were made for enforcement if there were any violations. Howard Zelefskv of staff stated that a complaint would be generated and then investigated to have the use permit revoked. Commissioner Rowe stated that,he agreed with the heliport but felt that provisions were needed for enforcement. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if this is to conform to the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations. She stated that she would like two conditions added to the Conditions of Approval stating visual flight rules conditions only and for private use only. (2360d) -9- P.C. April 16, 1985 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-12 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-12: 1. The proposed modifications to replace a 75,000 square foot office building with a 21,500 square foot commercial building in the Charter Centre development will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed modifications are in conformance with City's adopted General Plan and Redevelopment Plans for the area. 3. The proposed use is compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. 4. The proposed location, site layout and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the new retail uses and additional restraint will not create traffic or circulation problems due to the reduction in parking demand and development of a more efficient parking layout. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-12: 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevation dated April 12, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. All applicable conditions imposed on past entitlements for Charter Center shall remain effective. 3. The applicant shall submit a flight pattern to the Department of Development Services and Police Department Helicopter Bureau prior to finalization of Tower #1, and shall conform to all Federal Aviation Administration regulations. 4. Helicopter take -off and landings shall be limited to the daylight hours with a maximum of five round trip flights per day and shall be limited to weekdays and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. No flights shall be permitted on Sundays. (2360d) -10- P.C. April 16, 1985 5. Use of the Helipad shall be restricted to the Huges 500 C or other helicopters which have been demonstrated to be more quiet. 6. No commercial flights shall be permitted from the Helipad. 7. The project shall comply with Article 24 of the Uniform Fire Code. C-4 ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-15/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-32 Applicant: William C. Curtis Zone Case No. 84-15 is a request to change the zoning of a 1 acre site from LUD (Limited Use District) to LUD-01 (Limited Use District -combined with oil production). The subject site has been designated as a "wetland" by the Department of Fish and Game and is in the original permit jurisdiction therefore subject to the permit authority of the California Coastal Commission. If an "01" designation is approved for the site, the applicant will be required to obtain a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments and a Coastal Development Permit prior to drilling. In addition, the zone change will be subject to the review of the Coastal Commission prior to use permit review. Chairman Livengood asked staff what the impact is on this "white hole" area if any. Mike Adams of staff stated that the impact for this particular action since it has not been acted upon by the Coastal Commission, they have chosen not to recognize any different zoning than we presently have on the site which is Limited Use District, therefore any changes the city makes to the existing zoning would not be subject to Coastal Commission review. The Coastal Commission would review, however, if the applicant does get the zone change, he will have to come back with a use permit which will be subject to•Coastal Commission Review. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if this project was adjacent to the Flood Control Channel. Staff stated yes. Commissioner asked staff it they planned to use the road along the channel. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated yes, that they want to stay as close to the Flood Control Channel so there will be as little disturbance to the wet land as possible. Commissioner Schumacher questioned if they had permission to use the Flood Control Channel road. Staff stated that permission had been secured by the applicant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Mandrell, Representative for William Curtis, stated that he generally in agreement with staff. He stated that he would like to make a few comments. He stated that mr. Curtis had drilled numerous wells in the state. He stated that he is currently drilling wells in Ventura County. He has assembled a team of experts in preparing his proposal on this site. Regarding the phasing of this project the first phase on the one acre site consists of gas and oil production. He is proposing to drill producing wells within the (2360d) -11- P.C. April 16, 1985 limits of his lease. He stated that they were not proposing the typical production pump unit as accustomed to in Huntington Beach. He stated that if this is approved in the future he would probably be expected to restore `some wetlands to mitigate anything that occurred as a result of this operation. Gary Gorman, Representative for a local environmental group called Friends of Huntington Wetlands, spoke in reference to the study session with the Planning Commission and the City Council on March 13, 1985 in regards of what to do with the "white hole" area. The California Coastal Conservancy was requested by the city to analyze the area to come up with some plans with this area. They are currently studying this area. He stated it would be premature to make a zone change in an area with the future of it yet to be decided. Most of the City Council and the Planning Commission members felt the area was a wetland and most or all of it should be restored. He stated that staff contacted the Department of Fish and Game and they were very much opposed to drilling on this site. They felt that the mitigation measures done would not offset the loss created by this project. He stated that he is opposed to the zone Change and requested that it be denied or postponed until the California Coastal Conservancy has a chance to decide what to do with the property. Bill Compton, area manager for the Southern California Edision Company, stated that he would like to clarify a few points that were made in the staff report. One which the Edision Company is interested in purchasing the gas that is recovered. He stated that this was not true. The Edison Company has declined to enter into any type of an agreement in regards to slant drilling under their property. Donald Troy, a friend of Daisy Thorpe Picarelli owner of the property, stated that he is in real estate and has tried to sell this land but unable to do so because of its being wetlands. Commissioner Erskine asked Mr. Mandrel about his plans for slant drilling in the future. Mr. Mandrel stated that they still have to negotiate this deal with the city and that is not proposed at all in connection with this application. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. Mike Adams of staff stated that a representative from the State Coastal Conservancy was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Chairman Livengood asked the representative how the timing on this project impacts the study. Ruth Gallanter, consultant to the State Coastal Conservancy who is working on the project with the City Council stated that the Conservancy is in the middle of trying to deal with all the property (2360d) -12- P.C. April 16, 1985 owners and who owns what rights to what land for the purpose of - identifying land that may be available for selling or swapping'so that the wetlands restoration can be done in the most productive fashion. Since the area is a piece of the area they are studying, she was sent to this meeting to see how or what the Commission was trying to do with this section of the wetlands. She stated that she hoped to identify the land that is available and work out an agreement with various land owners to develop a restoration plan. At the stage of developing the restoration plan with specifics; that is, where their is water, or where one might or might not be able to handle oil drilling and appropriate berming, the California Coastal Conservancy would then best be able to deal with this question. That phase in the work is some way off. The Commission discussed which item to vote on first. Commissioner Porter felt that the negative declaration should as a matter of procedure be acted upon first. Commissioner Porter motioned to deny Negative Declaration No. 84-33 based on the finding that the project is in a habitat identified to be occupied by endangered species and that it should require an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Erskine stated that he was against the zone change but stated that he was in favor of the Negative Declaration No. 84-33 because it included a biological assessment prepared under the direction of Development Services by the consulting firm of Michael Branden and Associates. He stated that this was adequate in place of an Environmental Impact Report. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-33 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Livengood stated that he could not support Zone Change No 84-15 at this time with the information supplied tonight. He stagy U that maybe he could have some decision after the study was completed. Commissioner Rowe stated that he felt that there were major reasons for denying approval due to the fact that the whole area is open for study. Commissioner Erskine stated that he was opposed to the zone change. He stated that the Commission must act in good faith to give the Coastal Conservancy additional time to determine if this is an appropriate spot for this use. Chairman Livengood questioned the Commission or whether this should be denied or continued. Mike Adams of staff stated that if the (2360d) -13- P.C. April 16, 1985 Commission continues this item it will appear that they are leaning towards a means or a method by which you can approve this zone change. If the Commission continues this zone change simply for the sake of the study, than I would recommend that the Commission take action. A zone change does not have to wait for any period of time and can come back before the Planning Commission any time ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ZONE CASE NO. 84-15 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher;macher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed oil operation will not be compatible with the surrounding uses. 2. A Zone Change at this time may prejudice an ongoing study of assessing and planning for the wetlands areas in the coastal zone between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River being conducted at the direction of the City Council. 3. A Zone Change within an area identified as a White Hole by the Coastal Commission is premature. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0. 85-2 Applicant: Huntington Bay, and Racquet Club Tentative Tract No. 11881 and Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 along With Conditional Exception No. 85-18 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2 is a request to subdivide a 14.68 acre site into 13 lots and develop 42 condominium units with 20 additional boat slips. In order to provide a variation in the building roof lines the applicant is requesting a variance from Section XIVB of the Huntington Bay and Racquet Club Specific Plan to allow for a maximum building height of 48 feet, 3 feet over the 45 foot maximum. The project is within original jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone which requires a Coastal Development Permit. Commission and staff discussion ensued. Public Works and the Commission discussed public works standards as far as changes to condition no. 9 which before stated that the applicant would have to remove curb and gutter and widen Warner Avenue but later decided that the applicant nor the city would be widening Warner Avenue. Commissioner Schumacher asked if public works if Warner Avenue was ever going to be widened. Mr. Evans of staff stated no. (2360d) -14- P.C. April 16, 1985 Commissioner Livengood questioned condition no. 28-in regards to the earthquake fault stating he would like to see it tightened up to reflect the requirements. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated it is in the Alquist Priolo area and building permits can not be issued until the geological report is submitted to the building department. Commissioner Winchell indicated that she would like the existing fault identified as a condition. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the affordable housing. Mike Adams of staff stated that this was stated in condition no. 23. Commissioner Winchell asked staff about the 7 units in a row stating that the Specific Plan only indicates 6 units in a row. Howard stated that the Specific Plan does indicate 42 units but that there must be a mistake because the only way the applicant could achieve 42 units with that given configuration would be 7 in a row. Commissioner Schumacher stated that if the Specific Plan is not correct, the Commission should not vote on it unit it has been corrected. Commissioner Erskine stated that the project was not consistent with the Specific Plan because it did not reflect the change made by the City Council. Mike Adams stated that staff could bring this item back with an additional conditional exception and a transcript of the City Council meeting on the Specific Plan item to see what the intent of the City Council was. The Planning Commission in concurrence with the applicant requested that this item be continued until May 7 for a verification of the City Council's intent regarding the Specific Plan. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 7, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None D. Items not for Public Hearing D-1 Administrative Action No 85-1 A request to allow for the continuation of use for a non -conforming freestanding 22' x 8' (176 square feet) "Ole's" cabinet sign approximately 40 feet high. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 85-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir None Erskine None Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, (2360d) -15- P.C. April 16, 1985 E. F. G. Discussion Items E-1 Code Amendment No. 85-11 �.� (Board of Zoning Adjustments responsibilities) Staff requested that this item be brought back on the May 21, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 21, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Rowe out of the room ABSTAIN: None Pending Items: F-1 Pending Items List Chairman Livengood asked the Commission if they had any concerns which they did not. Planning Commission Items: The Commission discussed the letter and petition submitted by residents of the 900 block of California Street in regards to the recent construction at 914 and 916 California Street. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what could be done to people who have violated the ordinance code. Secretary Palin stated that they could be referred to the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like to find some way to tie the extra outside stairs and development of garages to additional parking spaces. Staff presented a resolution for a moratorium on development prior to issuance of building permits for the City Council to adopt. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE A RESOLUTION FOR A MORATORIUM WAS APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, WinchelL, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None (2360d) -16- P.C. April 16, 1985 ri I. ames w. lcp G-1 Bylaws and Public Hearing Procedures Chairman Livengood requested staff to have the approved Bylaws and Public Hearing Procedures placed in their permanent packet ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND'BY SCHUMACHER THE BYLAWS AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: Porter G-2 Housing Committee Schumacher, Livengood, Chairman Livengood stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission discussed the Housing Committee at the study session and that the City Council reactivated the Housing Committee at their April 15 meeting and retained Commissioner Livengood and Winchell as the Planning Commission appointees. Chairman Livengood then appointed Commissioners Schumacher and Rowe as a Survey Committee to review the Joint City Council Planning Commission retreat. G-3 Tour of Seaport Village, San Diego Chairman Livengood stated that he and his spouse would be attending this on April 27, 1985 and asked the other Commissioners were interested. Adjournment: The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 'Q alin, Secretary Tom Li g od, air an (2360d) -17- P.C. April 16, 1985