Loading...
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)