HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-17APPROVED 7/1/86
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986 - 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine,
P P (arrived at 7:05)
Mirjahangir, Porter (left at 10:00 PM)
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A-1 Minutes of 5/20/86 Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION BY LIVENGOOD,, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF'
THE 5/20/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: Erskine
MOTION PASSED
A-2 Minutes of. 6/3/86 Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE 6/3/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS:
B-1 Commissioner Rowe stated that since the City Council has acted
on the temporary sign issue he wished to rescind his appeal
request to the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of
temporary pennants at Wilson Ford (Administrative Review
86-37).
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2/NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 86-2 IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISED TENTATIVE
TRACT 11955 CONTINUED FROM APRIL 1, 1986 AND MAY 6, 1986
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The applicant is requesting a two week continuance to allow
additional time to prepare the development agreement required for the
zone change and completion of plans. At the May 6, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting the applicant verbally waived the mandatory
processing date.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the project.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE, AT
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 86-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-2 IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISED
TENTATIVE TRACT 11955 TO THE JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.
86-25 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 (CONTINUED FROM MAY
201 1986 AND JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS)
On June 3, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use
Permit 86-21 in conjunction with Conditional Exception 86-25 and
Coastal Development Project 86-12 as requested by the applicant to
facilitate additional time for negotiations with adjacent property
owners for possible lot consolidation purposes. The applicant is
requesting another continuance to the July 15 Planning Commission
meeting due to continued negotiations. Waiver of the mandatory
processing time has been agreed upon by the applicant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the project.
1
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -2- (5500d)
1
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE, AT THE
APPLICANT'S REQUEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION NO. 86-25/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 TO THE JULY
15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
C-3 APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT
NO. - NEGATIVE DECLARATION86-18
On June 3, 1986, this item was continued to the June 17, 1986
Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to work with the
applicant and the appellant to discuss and possibly arrive at a
satisfactory agreement regarding the proposed 11-unit apartment
project. Staff has met with the applicant and his architect in order
to discuss and clarify site coverage, open space, a turnaround area,
and parking requirements. In addition, staff set up a meeting on
Tuesday, June 10, 1986, in which the appellant, the applicant, a
Planning Commission representative and staff got together and
discussed the major issues of parking and traffic impacts,
architectural enhancement, and number of units allowed versus the
number of units that would best suit the site.
The outcome of the meeting was that the applicant stated that the
proposed project would meet the R2 zoning standards in every
respect. In addition, the applicant stated that he is willing to
consider lowering the number of units if it will be in the best
interest of the City and the neighborhood. He is willing to
consider reducing the density, if it will be acceptable to the
neighbors.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is covered by Negative Declaration 86-18.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Sue Winn, resident in neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the
project because of the impending, heavy on -street parking.
Bill Halpin, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He does
not feel that the street is wide enough to accommodate the traffic.
He feels that the project will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -3- (5500d)
Donna Clark, resident, spoke in oppposition to the project because
she does not feel that it is compatible with an R2 or single family
development. She also feels that the project will create too much
traffic and it will become a burden to street parking.
Bob Conway, neighborhood resident, questioned staff and the
Commission regarding the project meeting held on June 10, 1986.
Robert Franklin, -Planning Staff, responded to his questions. He
explained that a meeting was held with the applicant, appellant,
members from staff and members from the Planning Commission. The
project density was discussed along with the densities of adjacent
properties. The applicant did agree to reduce his project to 9 or 10
units. He further explained that the project did meet code. No firm
decision has been received from the Homeowners Group.
Jerry Bame, Counsel for the property owner, spoke in support of the
project. He explained that his client could request 14 units
according to code however he only wants 11. There is R2 zoning, with
units, in the neighborhood. His applicant is concerned about the
other residents in the neighborhood. He felt that all of the
concerns had been addressed. The property owner is willing to reduce
the density but there have been no formal requests made. Mr. Bame
feels that if the project meets code then it'should be'approved.
Don Hartfelder, architect, spoke in support of the project. He feels
his client's project meets all codes. Changes have been made to
alleviate problems. The bedroom count has been brought down. His
client has attempted to please his neighbors and at the same time
enhance the neighborhood.
Bill Wilson, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated
that he has worked hard on this project and has strived for quality.
He is very proud of the proposed development and he has plans to have
members of his family occupy the first unit completed.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners felt that the project has physical constraints
(access problems, bad curve in the collector street and the access
was a narrow street) and that the neighborhood was unusual. Since
the Planning Commission does have the right to set discretionary
guidelines they felt that because of the physical and social
implications the project should not be allowed to be built to the
maximum number of units.
Attorney Sangster explained the memo handed out to the
Commissioners. The Planning Commission may exercise discretion as to
the location and design of properties which abut an arterial
highway. He also reminded the Commission that this proposal was
getting close to the mandatory processing date.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -4- (5500d)
The Commissioners agreed that the R2 standards and the General Plan
do not match. A move towards two stories and less units would be
more compatible.
Les Evans, Public Works, said he did not feel that there was anything
unusual with the street in the neighborhood to create traffic
problems.
The Commission further stated that development in the adjacent R2
area has not proceeded to the maximum allowed and since there is an
unusual mix of zoning in this area a maximum density allowed on this
project would be incompatible with existing developments.
Two options were discussed. The first option was for 8 units-18
bedrooms-2 stories, the second option was for 6 units-18 bedrooms-
2 stories. The applicant was proposing 11 units-22 bedrooms-
3 stories.
Commissioner Erskine stated that the Planning Commission should be a
policy making board not a second planning staff. He felt that the
item being presented was a unanimously approved BZA item and a staff
approved (without issue) item and that the Commission was now being
asked to make a planning decision. He felt that further direction
and information should be presented by staff.
A STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE OPTION FOR 6 UNITS-18 BEDROOMS-
2 STORIES:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine `
Jerry Bame requested that he be given time to confer with his clients
regarding the proposed option.
Attorney Sangster suggested that the item be trailed until after the
next public hearing item.
When the item was resumed, Mr. Bame, again addressed the Commission.
He stated that his client could not accept the Commissioner's
suggestion of 6 units, 18 bedrooms, 2 stories. He asked that the
Commission act on the plan as submitted.
Commissioner'Erskine stated, for the record, that he would have
supported a compromise but, under the circumstances, he would be
voting against the motion. He felt with the proximity and contiguous
nature of the parcel to the arterial, Warner Avenue, that a public
hearing was required on the project. He further stated that it is
appropriate for the Board of Zoning Adjustments to discuss the impact
of the project on or from the arterial and that instead the
Commission is getting into other neighborhood concerns that do not
relate to these impacts.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -5- (5500d)
A MOTION,WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER,,SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY USE PERMIT
NO. 86-17, WITH AMENDED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed
eleven (11) unit apartment project will 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 proposed -structures will -be injurious to existing
properties and improvements in the area because:
a. The number of units the applicant is requesting is the
maximum number allowed in the R2 zone and development to
such maximum would cause extreme traffic and safety impacts.
b. There is an unusual mix of zoning and density in the area
and the density requested by the applicant would be
incompatible with existing development.
3. The proposed eleven unit apartment project will create undue
traffic hazards to the area because there is no direct access
off an arterial highway (Warner Avenue) and ingress and egress
to the adjoining site will cause additional traffic impacts and
safety problems to Orion Avenue, Marina View Place and Sandra
Lee Lane.
4. The Commission indicated to the applicant that a project
compatible with the area would contain six units (two units per
lot), eighteen bedrooms, and limited to two stories.
C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986, MAY 6,
1986, AND JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS)
This item was first continued at the meeting of May 6, 1986, in
order to give the stable owners more time for review. On May 28,
1986, Bonnie Wakeham of E.T.I. Corral 100 met with staff to discuss
their concerns. On June 3, 1986, the Planning Commission continued
this item since no one spoke at the public hearing. Ms. Wakeham has
indicated that she was in the audience that night, but chose not to
speak since she was satisfied with the changes made in the ordinance
by staff.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -6- (5500d)
Code Amendment No. 86-16 proposes to consolidate provisions for
horse stables, update the language, and reorganize the article.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Bonnie Wakeham, E.T.I. Corral, spoke in support of the Code
Amendment.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the code
amendment and the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986 AND
MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS)
A request to streamline the nonconforming provisions of the code,
renumber the article as Article 965, and add a provision permitting
the reconstruction of nonconforming residential uses if more than
50% destroyed by a natural disaster, provided that the current
setback and parking requirements are met, subject to conditional use
permit approval by the Planning Commission.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -7- (5500d)
C-6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES (CONTINUED FROM MAY 6, 1986
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
At the Planning Commission meeting held on May 6, 1986, the
Commission continued the draft affordable housing policies to June
17, 1986. A study session was also scheduled and held on June 16,
1986 to discuss the draft policies. The study session comments have
been incorporated into the proposed policies.
The draft policies for affordable housing were presented to the
Commission.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Kathie Holmes, resident at 2110 Main Street, spoke in opposition to
the proposed policies. She stated that she was opposed to the size
and the mix and that each case should be considered on a
case -by -case basis.
Kirk Kirkland, President, Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of
Realtors, spoke in opposition to inclusionary zoning programs. He
said that he supported reviewing new developments on a case by case
basis. He is opposed to any kind of deed restrictions.
Barry Bussiere, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
opposition to the draft policies mandating affordable housing. He
requested more time to have the proposed policies clarified. He has
not, to date, had any complaints from businesses in the area having
difficulty attracting employees because of the lack of affordable
housing.
Richard Harlow, consultant, spoke in support of voluntary policies.
He feels that our community is well balanced. He suggested that a
pool could be created to account for affordable units created by the
market, which could be used by the City to fulfill affordable
housing requirements in the coastal zone.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the policies.
A lengthy discussion ensued. The Commissioners agreed that
Huntington Beach is the most affordably balanced coastal community
and that the Mello Bill had some complicated requirements.
Since the Commission has to evaluate density bonuses, affordability
and environmental factors all together, a case -by -case analysis of
each project would be justified to avoid creating a bad project, if
more affordability and higher density is allowed. They agreed that
instead of adopting either one of the policies (#la or #lb),
suggested during the study session, that Resolution 5200, adopted in
1983 by the City Council, should be left as is.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -8- (5500d)
Proposed policies #2 through #8 were discussed and a straw vote was
taken on each. It would be decided later whether these policies
would be incorporated into another policy document or included in
this one. The results are as follows:
#2. When affordable units are built in the City, 75% of the
affordable units shall be for low income households and 25%
shall be for moderate income households.
AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Winchell
NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE FAILED
#3. The size and mix of affordable units shall be in the same
proportion as the rest of the project. If 50% of the project
consists of 2 bedroom units, then 50% of the affordable units
shall be 2 bedroom.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE PASSED
#4. Projects may be granted no more than a 25% density bonus,
except for senior residential projects, which may be granted
no more than a 50% density bonus.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE PASSED
#5. Affordable requirements on rental projects shall be recorded
with the County Recorder's office and shall run with the land
for the term of the requirement. Mortgage revenue bond
financing terms shall be handled as required by law.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher
NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE FAILED
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -9- (5500d)
#6. Each affordable development incentive or requirement,
including mortgage revenue bond financing, within a
residential project shall provide its own -affordable units
which shall not be comingled with units for any other
requirements or incentives.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine, Livengood
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE PASSED
Commissioner Erskine stated, for the record, .."that other items are
occasionally adopted by other jurisdictions. This one is a
completed mention of the Housing Committee and that no other
jurisdiction has an anti -double dipping mechanism."
#7. HCD shall annually review the distribution of affordable units
among income categories within the City by comparing existing
units to projected needs in the Housing Assistance Plan and
shall set priorities for production of affordable units by
income category in the coming year.
Commissioner Winchell stated that this item was created have our own
HCD department keep better track of our housing stock and to direct
them to give us more statistics to enable us to do better planning,
not to create a new position.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE PASSED
#8. Affordable criteria shall be revised annually in accordance
with the median household income for Orange County as defined
by HUD.
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
VOTE PASSED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES TO THE JULY 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE UP THE POLICIES IN THE FORM OF
A RESOLUTION AND TO NOTIFY ALL INTEREST GROUPS AT LEAST TWO WEEKS
BEFORE THE MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -10- (5500d)
C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
This item was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1986. The
attached code amendment streamlines provisions to repeal existing
Articles 969.5, 969, 965, 969.8, and 969.7 and add new Article 941,
"Limited Use/Recreational Open Space Districts," and new Article
942, "Shoreline/ Water Recreation/Coastal Conservation Districts."
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment.
Due to the lateness of the meeting and the length of the agenda for
July 1, 1986, it was suggested that Code Amendment No. 86-17 be
continued until the July 15, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 TO THE JULY 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.
85-20 - RESUBMITTAL
On May 7, 1986, Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18 and Conditional
Exception No. 85-20 expired after being active for one year from the
date of Planning Commission approval. The applicant's plans are
currently in Plan Check but will not proceed unless a new
entitlement date is approved. The plan submitted has been slightly
modified to meet many of the issues raised in Plan Check.
Specifically, the building has been moved toward the front property
line by 16 feet in order to accommodate Fire Department concerns at
the rear of the property. As a result, the fountain which was
depicted in the front yard on the original plan has been
eliminated. Staff has recommended in the conditions of approval
that a comparable amenity be provided to enhance the project's
visual quality.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -11-
(5500d)
Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18 is a request to develop an 81 unit
(two efficiency units, 59 one -bedroom units, and 20 two -bedroom
units) retirement home. Conditional Exception No. 85-20 is a
request to permit the following:
(a) Portions of the building to be setback 16 feet from the north
property line in lieu of the 20 foot perimeter setback
requirement (Sec. 9645.6);
(b) Twenty two -bedroom apartment units instead of all one -bedroom
units (Sec. 9645.9);
(c) Two efficiency units with a minimum area of 435 square feet in
lieu of a minimum square feet of 500 (Sec. 9645.9);
(d) A parking ratio of one space for each 3 one -bedroom units and
one space for each 1.5 two -bedroom units instead of one space
per unit (Sec. 9645.10); and
(e) Eighteen compact size parking spaces at a ratio of 19.6
percent; no compact spaces are permitted for residential
projects with less than 100 units (Sec. 9645.10).
A new conditional use permit was required because the proposed
development contains two -bedroom units which is a substantial change
over the previously approved plan and a new conditional exception
because there are no provisions in the Pacifica Community Plan for .
two -bedroom units.
ENVIRONMENTAL 'STATUS:
Negative Declaration No. 83-44 was approved by the Planning
Commission for a 98, single -bedroom apartment unit development.
Since the proposed 81 unit apartment project maintains relatively
the same bedroom count and building size as was previously approved,
no further environmental review is necessary.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Robert Zinngrabe, the applicant, was present to speak in support of
the project. He stated that the building had been moved forward in
order to accommodate the concerns of the Fire Department.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
A modification to condition #1 was added to include: an amenity to
replace the fountain will be provided and subject to the approval of
the Director of Development Services.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -12- (5500d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20,
WITH FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20:
1. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the project
due to the unique proposal of a variety of senior residential
opportunities that do not apply generally to other property or
uses in this district.
2. Conditional Exceptions for unit size, number of bedrooms per
unit, number and size of parking spaces and perimeter setback
are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights and consistent with post project approvals in
this area.
3. The granting of this conditional exception will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare
or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements
in the neighborhood as identified below:
a. The reduction of a 20 foot primary setback to 16 feet along
the north property line will not have an adverse impact on
the adjacent land uses since the north and east property
lines of the subject site abut parking lots.
b. The inclusion of 20 two -bedroom apartment units conforms to
the intent and purpose of the Pacifica Community Plan by
providing a wider variety of unit types available to senior
citizens.
c. The reduction in unit size for two units from the required
500 square feet to 435 square feet will not have an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses since the units are
intended for senior citizens and additional open space for
the residents is being provided in a common recreation room
and common dining room.
d. The reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces from
one space per unit to one space per 3 one -bedroom units and
one space per 1.5 two -bedroom units plus the inclusion of
18 compact parking spaces will not have an adverse impact
on the surrounding land uses since the senior citizens
living within the development generally will use public
transportation or walk to shopping facilities located
within the area.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -13- (5500d)
4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and
will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay.
5. The granting of this conditional exception is not inconsistent
with the general purpose or intent of the Pacifica Community
Plan because it promotes senior residential housing.
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18:
1. The proposed 81-unit apartment project 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 because it is similar to existing surrounding
developments.
2. The proposed 81-unit apartment project will be compatible with
existing medical, commercial and residential uses in the
Pacifica Community Plan vicinity because it is designed to
house the elderly.
3. Site layout, building design and location of the proposed
project will be harmonious with existing adjacent developments
because of adequate building setbacks, intensified landscaping
and integrated parking.
4. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one
another on the site are properly integrated.
5. Vehicular parking and circulation on -site is integrated with
the adjacent southerly development and will not create traffic
or circulation problems.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18:
1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated June 13, 1986,
shall be the approved layout with the following modification:
a. The trash area shall be relocated to the southeast corner
of the parcel.
b. An amenity to replace
subject to the review
Development Services.
2. Prior to the issuance of
submit to the Development
approval the following:
the fountains shall be provided
and approval of the Director of
building permits, the applicant shall
Services Department for review and
a. Revised elevations with additional architectural treatment
on the west and south building elevations showing all
elevations subject to review and approval of the Director
of Development Services.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -14- (5500d)
b. A revised "Agreement and Covenant" indicating an "81-unit"
residential retirement apartment complex annex and showing
that the total number of residential units shall not exceed
"252" on both properties. The document must be signed by
all affected persons, including property owners, and must
be recorded with the County Recorder.
c. A copy of an irrevocable access and parking easement
between the two parcels that has been recorded with the
County Recorder.
d. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan.
e. Elevations showing the design and materials of all
perimeter walls.
3. All on -site parking at the Huntington Terrace retirement
facility and the proposed 81-unit development shall be
restricted for residents, guests and employees of those
facilities only.
4. The applicant shall notify the Department of Development
Services when the 81-unit development is 75% occupied so that
staff can conduct a parking assessment study for the two senior
residential projects. The parking study shall include analysis
of the approved parking ratio (one space per 3 one -bedroom
units and one space per 1.5 two -bedroom units) to determine if
this ratio is adequate. If the parking study determines that
the above ratio is inadequate, the applicant shall provide
employee parking off -site or provide additional parking on -site
that does not encroach into the required open space area.
5. The project shall preserve all existing trees on site and shall
incorporate them into the landscape plan.
a. Intensified landscaping shall be utilized along the north
and east property lines to buffer the use from adjacent
commercial uses.
6. One unit shall be designed exclusively for the handicapped.
7. At least one occupant of each dwelling unit shall be 60 years
of age or older.
8. Water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach
Water system.
9. Sewer, water and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City
standards.
10. Drainage for the subject project shall be approved by the
Department of Public Works and shall be designed to provide for
erosion and siltation control both during and after
construction of the proposed project.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -15- (5500d)
11. Street improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.)
shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public
Works standards.
12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This
requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will
install a more energy efficient alternative subject to review
and approval of the Department of Development Services.
13. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers.
14. All building spoils such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an
offsite facility equipped to handle them.
15. Energy efficient lighting such as high pressure sodium vapor
lamps shall be used in parking lots.
16. The development shall meat all requirements of the Huntington
Beach Fire Department.
17. If an entry gate is proposed at the main entrance, it shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services
and the Fire Department.
18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this
Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or
the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
85-36/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-394
On May 5, 1986, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's
denial of a request to construct a 4-unit condominium project on the
subject property. The applicant has subsequently revised the layout
and design of the units in an effort to substantially comply with
the standards of Downtown Specific Plan. Specifically, the unit
size of each unit has been reduced with a corresponding increase in
the amount of open space.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a 4 unit
condominium project is exempt from environmental review.
COASTAL STATUS:
The project is located within the Coastal Zone boundaries and
requires a Coastal Development Permit for special consideration to
assure that the project is in accord with the policies set forth in
the Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 3 of the California Coastal
Act.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -16- (5500d)
The subject site is an area designated as "non appealable" which is
all the area of the coastal zone, lying inland from the appeal
jurisdiction. Projects located outside the appeal jurisdiction
require coastal development approval from the City. These are not
appealable to the Coastal Commission.
SPECIFIC PLAN•
The project is within the Downtown Specific Plan District II.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Ron Pattinson, consultant to the applicant, spoke in support of the
project. He stated that the applicant is willing to work with the
Design Review Board and make any changes necessary.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
85-36/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-394, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
.ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60:
1. The proposed residential development will not have a
detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and
convenience of persons residing in the area, nor upon the value
of the property within the vicinity.
2. The proposed use is compatible with existing uses in the
vicinity.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
FINDINGS - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-36:
1. LUP. That the development project proposed by the CDP
application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and
standards of the C-LUP.
2. Zoning Regulations. That the CDP application is consistent
with the specific plan as well as other provisions of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -17- (5500d)
3. Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed
development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner
that is consistent with C-LUP.
4. California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the
public access ana--p-u-Flic recreation policies of Chapter 3 of
the California Coastal Act.
FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT:
The Planning Commission may approve the Special Permit application
in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development
will:
1. Promote better living environments.
2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of
aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site
layout and design such as this plan has incorporated.
3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and
convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor
detrimental or injurious to the value of the property or
improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general.
4. Be consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan
in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and
compatible with the sourrounding environment.
FINDINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-312:
1. The proposed consolidation of two (2) parcels for purposes of
residential use is in compliance with the size and shape of
property necessary for that type of development.
2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land
use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of
this type of use.
3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of use
at the time the Downtown Specific Plan zoning designation was
placed on the subject property. The proposed development of
this .15 net acre of land zoned DTSP, District No. 2,
Residential, is proposed to be constructed having 4 units.
4. The lot size, depth, frontage and through the use of a special
permit, all other design and implementation features of the
proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in
compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with
the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision
Map Act and Supplementary City'Subdivision Ordinance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60:
1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated June 9, 1986,
shall be the approved conceptual layout and design.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -18- (5500d)
2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the
location of clothes dryers.
3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the lcoations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units.
4. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers.
5. 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.
6. Prior to recordation of any final map, the CC&R's for the
project shall be submitted to the planning division for review
to assure compliance with all applicable conditions of approval
and to the attorney's office for review as to legal form. The
CC&R's and the Association rules shall contain a provision that
the Homeowner's Association shall be obligated for the
maintenance and upkeep of all common areas.
7. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or
detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state
acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60
CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of
all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation
standards of 45 dBA CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist
of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under
the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering, with the application for building
permit(s). All measures recommended to mitigate noise to
acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the
project.
8. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation.
area energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g., high pressure
sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be
directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties.
9. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered
soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site sampling
and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill
propt!r_ ttorj, foundationo, retaining walla, ntreofn, and
utilities.
10. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type
shall be installed as approved by the Building Department.
11. The applicant shall work with the Design Review Board in order
to meet the provisions of the Design Guidelines (particularly
for the Eighth Street Elevation) and submit revised elevations
to reflect the recommendations of the Design Review Board.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -19- (5500d)
12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this
conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions of
the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-342:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map received and dated October 18, 1985
shall be the approved layout.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for the following Public
Works improvements.
a. Full street improvements from the center line of 8th Street
to the applicants property.
b. Curb and gutter shall be moved to 29 1/2 from the center
line of 8th Street.
C. 8th Street improvements shall be designed in conjunction
with established grades on motel plan south of the subject
site.
d. Sewer lateral shall connect to proposed 8th Street sewer.
e. Improvements of alleys and 2 1/2 foot of dedication shall
be required.
f. Dedicate 2 foot Public utility easement on 8th Street.
g. Extend 8" water main in 8th Street and tie services into
new main.
3. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department
of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder.
A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the
Department of Development Services
4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's
water system at the time said parcel is developed.
5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's
sewage sytem at the time said parcel is developed.
6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said
parcel is developed.
7. Compliance with all applicable City ordinance.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -20- (5500d)
C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-24
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 is a request to construct a motel
on a T-shaped lot located along the northerly section of Beach
Boulevard. The project consists of a three-story, L-shaped motel
with 104 units, a manager's unit, conference rooms and a formal
lobby area. In addition, an outdoor pool and spa are provided for
enjoyment by guests. Some parking spaces are covered by a lattice
trellis for shading purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-28 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal
or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the
project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued.
Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24, it is
necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative
Declaration No. 86-28.
Evaluation of the traffic situation by the Environmental Section and
a traffic engineer showed a possible adverse impact on Beach
Boulevard. However, it was felt the additional traffic would not
have a significant effect. The traffic light to be installed at the
intersection of Beach Boulevard and MacDonald Avenue will mitigate
the impacts facilitating the flow of additional traffic in the area.
REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:
The subject property is within a redevelopment survey study area and
the Redevelopment staff have been apprised of the proposed project.
Their comments focus primarily upon the bulkiness of the building.
Incorporating greater building facade offsets fronting the public
streets and creating undulation in the side elevations by providing
two-story sections is their recommendation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Gerry Ramsey, architect, spoke in support of the project. He stated
that he feels the applicant has been caught in between old and new
code requirements. Since there is an option on the property which
expires on June 25, 1986, he requested a variance on the front
setback. He asked that the project be approved in concept with
conditions that stipulate the corrections necessary to comply with
the zoning code and any changes that staff might have.
Robert Corona, consultant, spoke in support of the project. He
urged the Commission to vote for Alternative Recommendation No. 2
which would approve the project in concept, with modifications, so
that his client could complete his escrow commitment.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -21- (5500d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-24 WITH THE REVISED FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS FOUND IN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION #2, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. Based upon the conditions imposed on the development, the
establishment, maintenance and operation of the 104-unit motel
will not be detrimental to: the general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity; or property and
improvements in the vicinity, of such use or building.
2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of
General Commercial Land Use designation.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated
June 5, 1986 shall be revised depicting the modifications
described herein:
a. Provide minimum 10 feet building wall offsets between each
story along the Beach Boulevard and Holt Avenue facades, or
similar treatment subject to review by the Development
Services Director.
b. Setback the building along Beach Boulevard in accordance
with Section 9220.7(d) pertaining to site angle setbacks.
C. Provide minimum 15' wide planters along all streetside
property lines.
d. Delete the meeting rooms or reduce the building size to
accommodate additional parking based on a parking ratio of
one space per 35 square feet of meeting room floor area.
e. Provide a minimum of 3 foot wide planters along westerly
property line with tree wells (includes vehicle overhang).
f. No portion of the motel (including trellis covers) may
encroach within the required 15 feet setback area along the
west property line; and 5' along the south property line.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -22- (5500d)
g. Provide.additional roof movement.
h. Reduce portion of the structure to two stories, if
feasible, or provide similar undulation treatment subject
to review and approval by the Development Services Director.
i. Driveway access to the adjacent southeasterly parcel from
the southerly driveway on MacDonald Avenue.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit the following plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval.
b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and
shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen
said equipment.
3. Landscaping shall comply with Article 960 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code.
4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department.
5. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type
driveways on Beach Boulevard.
a. Driveway on Beach Boulevard shall have a miminum width of
thirty feet (301).
6. Occupancy of the motel units shall be restricted to a daily
rate for a maximum period of 30 days.
a. No hour, week or monthly rates are permitted.
7. Any free-standing sign shall be low -profile, monument -type.
8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units.
9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.
10. 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.
11. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure
sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All
outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto
adjacent properties.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -23- (5500d)
12. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal
driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent corner
lot at Beach and MacDonald.
13. Five feet wide street dedications are required on MacDonald and
Holt.
14. Remove and replace public improvements as required by Public
Works Department.
15. On -site water facilities (if required) shall be dedicated to
the City.
16. Another stairway is to be installed on the south side of the
complex near the lobby area. This stairway will replace the
need to provide a clear -to -sky minimum fire access lane of 24
feet on the west side of the building complex. This additional
stairway will also satisfy the requirement to provide stairways
for locating standpipes within 100 feet of travel from any unit.
17. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout
pursuant to Huntington Beach Fire Department and National Fire
Protection Association Pamphlet 13 Standards.
18. A 17 foot by 45 foot turning radius will be required for the
fire lane at the turn which extends the parking lot from Beach
Boulevard to MacDonald.
19. A fire alarm system shall be installed throughout pursuant to
Huntington Beach Fire Department Standards.
20. The size of the elevator installed shall be a minimum of 6 feet
8 inches wide by 4 feet 3 inches deep with a minimum clear
opening width of 42 inches.
21. On site fire hydrants shall be installed in locations approved
by the Fire Department.
22. The trellis above the fire lanes must provide a vertical
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.
23. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke thiq
Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or
of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-25
This request to increase the number of children permitted for day
care from 6 to 12, was originally brought before the Planning
Commission as Conditional Use Permit No. 85-3 at their March 5, 1985
meeting. Staff recommended approval of this request. The Planning
Commission denied this project due to neighborhood opposition and
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -24- (5500d)
concerns for noise, parking and traffic congestion. The applicant
then appealed the decision to the April 1, 1985 City Council
meeting. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision
for denial.
The applicant has submitted several petitions. One petition has
been signed by 9 of the 13 households along Argo Circle, stating
that they foresee no traffic problems with the addition of 6 more
children to the existing day care home. Another petition has been
signed by 17 neighbors stating they approve of Conditional Use
Permit No. 86-25.
The applicant states that the hours of operation for the day care
are from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15103 from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Barbara Leonard, applicant, spoke in support of the project. She
explained that she has done everything possible to address the
concerns of her neighborhood and feels that her proposal should be
approved.
Sandra Branch, Lesli Susick, Sandy Alexanian, and George Cristino,
residents in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the project.
B. Christata, from the Public Council of Day Care Centers, spoke in
support of the project and the applicant. She• felt that Mrs.
Leonard met all the specifications of a good day care center.
Allen Brusewitz, adjacent neighbor, spoke negatively about the
project. He said that he felt his privacy was being imposed on
because the children in Mrs. Leonard's yard were too noisy.
Jim Regan, spoke against the project. He felt that 12 children were
too many for a single family home in an R1 zone.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
86-25 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
There was no second to the motion and the motion died.
It was suggested by the Commission that a finding be added making
reference to the numerous neighbors testifying against the project
during the public hearing and stating that the project is not in
compliance with an R1 neighborhood.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -25- (5500d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 86-25 WITH ADDED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the City's General Plan of
Land Use.
3. Access, parking and number of vehicle trips to the day care
will cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood.
4. The proposed day care will have a detrimental effect due to
noise upon the general welfare, safety and convenience of
persons residing in the neighborhood.
5. Numerous adjacent neighbors testified that a home care facility
is not compatible with their R1 neighborhood and that the noise
created by a home care facility is detrimental to the enjoyment
of their homes.
C-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-33
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-29 is a request to permit a private
university consisting of four buildings totaling 98,750 square feet
and filed pursuant to Article 931, Unclassified Uses. West Coast
University is an evening college designed to educate working
adults. Daytime use of the facility will include executive training
for McDonnell Douglas (MDC) employees. The university is planned to
be constructed in two phases; first phase includes building A and
adjacent parking areas; second phase proposes three buildings (B, C,
D), of which D will be utilized as an industrial multi -tenant
building. Buildings B and C are intended for educational purposes
but may be industrial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-33 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal
or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the
project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued prior
to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-29, it is necessary
for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative
Declaration No. 86-33.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -26- (5500d)
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dan MacAllister spoke in support of the project. He questioned the
Public Work's requirement of an eight foot sidewalk on the project
and strongly expressed that he wished to see the stand of Eucalyptus
trees on the project saved.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
A condition was added regarding the saving of the trees and the
elimination of the eight foot sidewalk.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-33,
WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the private
university 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 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.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May
28, 1986, shall be the approved layout.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit
the following plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and approval.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -27- (5500d)
b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate
screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall
delineate the type of material proposed to screen said
equipment.
C. Floor plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses.
3. A planned sign program shall be approved for all signing within
the project pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department.
5. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire
Department, shall be posted and marked.
6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271)
in width and shall be of radius type construction.
7. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.
8. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an
off -site facility equipped to handle them.
9. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent
properties.
10. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils
Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and
laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties,
foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities.
11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type
shall be installed as approved by the Building Division.
12. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department
shall be installed throughout the buildings.
13. On site fire hydrants approved by the Fire Department shall be
installed pursuant to Fire Department and Public Works standards.
14. No parking shall be posted and fire lanes shall be designated per
Fire Department Specifications 415.
15. All life safety systems, including alarm systems, must comply
with the standards of the State Fire Marshal.
16. On -site water system shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington
Beach.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -28- (5500d)
1
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Alfred Brent, resident of Driftwood Mobilehome Park, spoke in
opposition to the alignment. He felt that there should have been
better notification. Everyone in the mobilehome park that would be
affected was not notified. If the alignment is approved he will
lose considerable value in his mobilehome. Who will pay for this
loss?
M. McClaine spoke in opposition to the alignment. He asked where
the traffic would go after they got to Beach Boulevard. He stated
that 237 families' lives would be interrupted by this alignment.
Dan Brannan, resident of Driftwood Mobilehome Park, spoke in
opposition to the alignment. He questioned whether all of the
parties concerned had been notified of the public hearing. He felt
that a special meeting should be set up to allow more public to
attend.
The Commissioners felt that the negative declaration needed
expanding and that everyone that"the project could effect should be
notified. They also had questions regarding the effect on Lake
Street, Atlanta, Walnut and Second Street.
A discussion ensued regarding the impact on the mobilehome park. If
these homes are relocated what costs will be incurred?
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project;
however, the public hearing was left open. The Commission felt that
the project should be readvertised and a special study session
involving all concerned parties and all City -Departments be held.
They also felt that any information available to the Commissioners
should be made available to the President of the Mobilehome Park so
that he could share the data with the interested residents.
Staff suggested that a study session be held on July 22, 1986, and
the item be readvertised and scheduled for the August 5, 1986
meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO HOLD A
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ON JULY 22, 1986, AT 7:00 PM, IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, TO INCLUDE ALL INVOLVED CITY DEPARTMENTS, AND ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
PC Minutes - 6/17/86
-31-
(5500d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE
PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-1 TO THE AUGUST 5, 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, AT STAFF'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
C-15 TENTATIVE TRACT 12810/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-27 WITH
DECLARATION 86-3U
Tentative Tract 12820 is a request to subdivide a .85 acre site into
two lots for purposes of constructing seven condominiums. Lot #1
fronts Beach Boulevard and consists of an existing two-story office
building. Parking for the office building will be rearranged to
conform with the new lot size. Lot #2 is situated behind the first
lot with access via a 20 foot wide easement on an adjoining lot.
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-27 is a request to develop seven
condominiums on Lot #2 with special permits for: 1) reduction in
side yard setbacks from 35' to 22'6" and 25' to 1716"; 2) reduction
in building separation from 20' to 1711"; 3) seven three-story units
in lieu of five three -stories and two two -stories; 4) 100%
(4 spaces) of the guest parking spaces to be incorporated on private
driveways in lieu of 50% (2 spaces); and 5) reduction in the minimum
recreation area dimension. A 0' building setback from the easterly
15 feet wide storm drain easement is requested under Conditional
Exception No. 86-40.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-30 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal
or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the
project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued
prior to any action on Tentative Tract 12820/Conditional Use Permit
No. 86-27/Conditional Exception No. 86-40, it is necessary for the
Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No.
86-30.
REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:
The subject property is within the Beach Boulevard redevelopment
survey/study area. Redevelopment staff's concerns pertain to the
number of proposed drive approaches off the Beach Boulevard frontage
road. Three drive approaches are too many for a small project of
this nature. Consolidating two of them and possibly widening the
main accessway to the condominium project is recommended.
1
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -32- (5500d)
17. The driveway on Bolsa Chica shall be restricted to right turns
only, both in and out.
18. Water main shall be extended to project site from Bolsa and Bolsa
Chica.
19. Sewer shall be extended to project site from Bolsa and Bolsa
Chica.
20. All required Public Works improvements shall be constructed,
except for the 8 foot sidewalks.
21. A tree survey shall be submitted by the applicant to determine
location, condition, and possible intereference with required
improvements. An effort will be made to save as many trees as
possible. Each tree removed shall be replaced with 2-24 inch
trees.
22. Prior to land conveyance for any purpose, a tentative parcel map
shall be filed. Said map shall be recorded prior to occupancy.
C-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-36
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-22 is a request to permit a windsurfing
school for six students on the subject property. The applicant has
indicated that the school will be operated on an initial temporary
basis on the vacant parcel until such time that the parking lot is
approved by the Coastal Commission and developed by the City.
During construction of the parking lot, the applicant is requesting
that the public docks adjacent to the fire station located on Warner
Avenue be used by the school until such time that the parking lot is
completed. Approval of the applicant's request to use the public
parking area and the public docks has been approved by both Paul Cook,
Public Works Director, and Dan Brennan, Real Property Manager.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the
Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration
No. 86-36 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were
received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has
recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action
on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-22, it is necessary for the Planning
Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-36.
COASTAL STATUS•
The subject property is located within the Coastal Commission
jurisdiction (non -appealable area). Should this project be approved
by the Planning Commission, the applicant would be required to file a
Coastal Development Permit with the Coastal Commission prior to the
establishment of the windsurfing school.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -29- (5500d)
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the
public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY M]:RJAHANGIR, TO DENY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-36, WITH
FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The proposed school will not be compatible with adjacent
properties. Students carrying equipment across Warner bridge
will create an unsafe situation for both pedestrians and
vehicles.
2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the
vicinity. The proposed school may create additional dust on
the site which is objectional to the residents located to the
east.
C-14 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-1
The City Council adopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 on
June 4, 1984, establishing the general alignments of A) Walnut
Avenue between Sixth Street and Lake Street; B) Walnut Avenue
between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard; C) Sixth Street between
Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue; D) Sixth Street between
Orange Avenue and Lake Street; and E) Orange Avenue between Sixth
Street and Third Street. These Circulation Element amendment items
were in response to the circulation section of the Downtown Specific
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The environmental impact of the proposed realignment was previously
assessed at the time of Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1.
Negative Declaration No. 84-14 was adopted by the City Council on
June 4, 1984. No additional environmental assessment is necessary.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -30- (5500d)
1
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the project.
The applicant requested a continuance of his project to allow him
time to increase the commercial property size to accommodate a
better parking layout and to delete one condominium unit.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE
TENTATIVE TRACT 12810/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-27 WITH SPECIAL
PERMITS/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-40/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-30,
AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -33- (5500d)
D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
D-1 REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 1327 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 6
1986, MAY 2 AND JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MRRTTNaS
Applicant: Charles Fry
Carlton Brown & Co., Inc.
A request to amend Resolution No. 1327 for a mixed development
at the northwest corner of Warner and Gothard
The Commission felt that the proposed uses for the development
should be more of an industrial mode. They requested that staff get
all of the back-up material necessary and to complete a survey of
the development to find out what the present uses are, in order to
modify the resolution.
Chairman Livengood suggested that the request be scheduled as a B
item at the next Planning Commission meeting so that it could be
heard first on the agenda.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE THE
REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 1327 TO THE JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
D-2 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
81-19 - FOX MEADOW STABLE - 6702 ELLIS AVENUE
A request by the applicant, Roberta Peterson, for a one year
extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 81-19.
S.9391.2 EXTENSIONS OF TIME of the Ordinance Code permits one year
extensions of time upon written request from the applicant subject
to a determination that the subject use has been in substantial
conformance with the provisions of this Article and that all
previous conditions of approval have been complied with during the
past years of operation.
A field inspection conducted by staff indicates that the temporary
commercial horse facility is in substantial conformance with the
code, and that all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning
Commission on August 18, 1981 have been complied with.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -34- (5500d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIE, TO APPROVE
THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ONE YEAR ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
81-19, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposed use is compatible with the Land Use Element which
designates the site as estate residential.
2. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses
because they are similar in nature (existing horse facilities)
or vacant.
3. With the exception of Sections 9391.6 and 9393(4) of the
Ordinance Code, Conditional Use Permit No. 81-19 is in
substantial conformance with intent and objective of Article
939, Temporary Commercial horse standards.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plans dated August 18, 1981, shall be the approved
layout.
2. The applicant shall be required to participate in the Local
Drainage Assessment District and pay drainage assessment fees
as per the Department of Public Works cost breakdown.
3. The maximum horse density for the facility shall not exceed 115
horses.
4. The facility shall comply with all building and Fire Department
requirements.
5. No structures other than those shown on the approved site plan
shall be constructed.
6. The wash rack drainage design shall be approved by the
Department of Development Services and Public Works.
7. The extension of time is valid for one (1) year.
8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind the
Conditional Use Permit approval in the event of any violation
of the applicable zoning laws; and such decision shall be
preceded by notice to the applicant and/or public hearing, and
shall be based upon specific findings.
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -35- (5500d)
E. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Ad Hoc Committee on Building Heights
Recommendation: The staff report was briefly discussed.
F. PENDING ITEMS:
None.
G.
H.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
The Commission requested that staff develop a report and matrix
regarding the notification process on public hearing items
(issues, areas, organizations, etc.). Chairman Livengood and
Commissioner Erskine will head up a committee to review staff's
methods of notification and make suggestions to improve the
methods.
On future staff reports involving tract maps, the Commission
would like a list of other projects that can be built on the
parcel if the map is not approved.
Status report of proposed development of 113,000 square foot
mini -storage facility at Gothard Street and Center Drive (Use
Permit No. 85-29).
Chairman Livengood requested a status report on Use Permit
85-29 (market at 17th. Street and Orange Avenue - Board of
Zoning Adjustment's item). How was it permitted?
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS:
None.
I. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 to the regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting on July 1, 1986 at 7:00 PM
APPROVED:
-C zn
James W. Palin, Secretary Tom Liviengooll, Ch irman
a
5500d)
1
PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -36- (5500d)