Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-03APPROVED 9/16/86 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION September 3, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P A ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes - Planning Commission meeting dated August 5, 1986 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1986 WERE APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Schumacher MOTION PASSED A-2 Minutes, As Amended - Planning Commission meeting dated August 19, 1986 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, MINUES OF AUGUST 19, 1986, WERE APPROVED, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, A-3 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-7 Applicant: Department of Public Works Request: Street Vacation of Harriman Avenue, east of Gothard Street A MOTTON WAS MADE BY WTNCHEI,L, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE AND FIND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, GENERAL PLAN ONFORMANCE 86-7, BY THE; FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-4 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-9 Applicant: Public Works Department Request: Storm Drain Easement Vacation - District Map 15 (SDM) 14-5-11), a major portion of the entire storm drain A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE AND FIND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-9, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED iI 1 11 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -2-. (6156d) B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE Applicant: Dan Hickman Request To replace outside stairs and deck with new stairs and enlarged deck to an existing non -conforming duplex located at 935 Tenth Street A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON -CONFORMING USE. IN ADDITION, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO CLOSELY MONITOR THE REBUILDING OF THE DECK. THE MAXIMUM WIDTH IS TO BE 4-1/2 FEET AND IT IS TO BE DESIGNED AND PAINTED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES. THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 ANALYSIS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-54 FOR THE RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WARNER AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET The Commission requested additional information on the retail center located at the Northeast Corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. They requested the overall master plan for the center and the uses. They recommended that the code might possibly need to be amended to reflect the methodology used in calculating the parking for the center. B-3 17TH. STREET/OLIVE - CLOSFD BAR - CONSTRUCTION Staff was requested to check out the closed bar and the on -going construction at 17th Street and Olive to see if it is legal. B-4 OBJECTION TO PROCEDURE ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-8 Tim Paone, representative from M. Westland Co., requested a clarification on the legality of a public hearing on Item C-8. Item C-8 is a request by the applicant for an interpretation of Condition No. 9 of Tentative Tract Map No. 83-563. He does not concur with Public Work's interpretation of the condition. He was informed that the Planning Commission had requested a public hearing on the item because of the concerns of the adjacent residents. The condition in question was imposed by the City Council when the item was appealed up to them. Therefore, the Planning Commission interprets the condition as they perceived the City Council's intent. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -3- (6156d) B-5 MORATORIUM - MOODY CIRCLE A sub -committee was set up to include members of the Planning Commission (Comissioner Erskine and Chairman Livengood), representatives of Broberg property, representatives of Moody property, and concerned residents to discuss the moratorium on Moody Circle. 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -4- (6156d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0. 86-24 On August 19, 1986, the Planning Commission was unable to take action on this item due to a tie vote. After the motion resulted in a tie vote, the applicant agreed to waive the mandatory processing date, and the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to the September 3, 1986 meeting. This is a request for the utiliziation of an existing church building located at 7641 Talbert Avenue (northwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Brookshire Lane) by expanding its operation to include a pre-school for 106 children. The conditional use permit for the church use was approved by the City Council on appeal for an initial five year period on September 6. 1983 with the possibility of an additional five-year extension of time.. Conditional Exception No. 86-24 is a request to permit the required playground area to occupy a portion of the site's parking lot. The building had originally been approved for industrial uses. It has only one tenant, the Calvary Chapel. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15101. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT THE MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1986. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she had reviewed the tape from the previous meeting and was ready to vote. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir Porter None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: 1. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach, 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's general plan of land use. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -5- (6156d) 3. Access, parking and number of vehicle trips to the pre-school will not cause undue traffic problems for the vicinity provided the fenced play area is provided at the southeastern portion of the property per the conditions of approval. 4.* The proposed pre-school will not have a detrimental effect on the general welfare, safety and convenience of persons working in the vicinity. 5. Due to the need for pre-school facilities at convenient locations throughout the community, including within centers of employment, the proposed day care facility would serve a need in providing an efficient and convenient location for prospective clients. 6. The approval of a conditional exception to allow all but 400 square feet of the play area to be asphalt paved will still allow a variety of play activities on the site, those appropriate for both paved and grass surfaces. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. That the site plan and floor plans dated June 11, 1986 be the approved layout with the following exceptions: 2. 3. a. No turf block shall be used for parking area or play area purposes. b. Permanent outdoor playground equipment shall be provided within this fenced area prior -to operation of the pre-school. c. A minimum of 400 square feet of grassed.area shall be provided within this fenced area separate from the parking spaces. That all applicable regulations of the Building Division and Fire Department be complied with prior to the operation of the pre-school. The maximum enrollment shall specified by the applicant. children shall be subject to not exceed 106 children as Any increase in the number of a new Conditional Use Permit. 4. Prior to operation, the applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the license from the Orange County, Social services Department permitting 106 children. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this Conditional Use Permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of any applicable zoning laws, or upon evidence that the occupancy is detrimental to the neighborhood; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -6- (6156d) 6. Conditional Use Permit 86-20 shall become null and void concurrently with the churchs' Conditional Use Permit should the existing church facility not be granted an extension of time by the City. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-28 is a request to convert an existing service station, located at 6502 Bolsa Avenue, into a convenience market and add an in -bay car wash facility pursuant to Section 9220.14 (d) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (At the present time, this "service station" is solely engaged in the sale of gasoline. No automobiles are repaired at this location.) The applicant is proposing that the project be developed in two phases. The first phase would include replacement of the underground storage tanks, construction of a single entry off Edwards Street, additional landscape and the construction of an in -bay car wash. The second phase would include the conversion of the remaining service bays to a convenience market and the provision of additional parking. On August 19, 1986 the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 86-18 because a petition with more than 80 signatures was included in the staff report, yet no person was in the audience to speak against the proposal. The Planning Commission instructed staff to readvertise the conditional use permit for the September 3, 1986 Planning Commision meeeting. Staff is recommending denial of the project as proposed because the combination of the three uses - convenience market, car wash and gasoline sales - is too intense for the site, will render gasoline sales the subordinate use to the convenience market and car wash, and will adversely affect both on and off -site circulation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bernie Smith, Shell Oil Company, spoke in support of the food mart and car wash. He stated that the sale of gasoline would not become a subordinate use at the site. He feels that with the proposed design and landscaping at the site it would make Bolsa more attractive. Charles B. DeFarkas, leases the site at 6502 Bolsa Avenue, spoke in support of the project. His objective is to serve Huntington Beach and at the same time make a profit. He feels that his facility needs improvement since it represents a gateway to Huntington Beach. His offer of a free car wash will be a first in the City and he feels this will make his business more profitable. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -7- (6156d) Conrad G. Neumann, 15032 Rice Circle, spoke in opposition to the project. He circulated a petition in which he obtained over 80 names against the project. He feels that the expansion will increase traffic and make crossing Bolsa and Edwards more of a hazard. Stephen W. Hogie, architect on the project, spoke in support of the project. He designed the circulation on the project and feels that it would not create an unsafe situation. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THERE WAS NO SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 WITH FINDINGS. THERE WAS NO SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 AS REVISED BY STAFF WITH AN IN -BAY CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GASOLINE SALES, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: 1. The in -bay car wash and gasoline sales, located on the southeast corner of Bolsa and Edwards will not have a detrimental effect'on the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of pe'r'sons residing or working in the area, nor be detrimental to property values or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed in -bay car wash and gasoline sales is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. 3. The proposed in -bay car wash and gasoline sales is compatible with existing commercial uses in the area. 4. The proposed location, site layout and design will properly adapt the site to streets, driveways and adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of the two uses on the site are properly integrated. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -8- (6156d) L11 1 6. The proposed access to the in -bay car wash and gasoline sales will not create traffic or circulation problems on or off site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. The convenience market shall be deleted. b. A minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter shall be provided along the southern property line. C. Parking shall comply with Section 9600.12 of the Ordinance Code. A parking space adjacent to the vacuum and the concrete slab adjacent to the air and water dispenser shall not be counted toward the required 2 parking spaces. d. A minimum 2-3 foot wide landscape planter shall be installed along the exterior property line along Bolsa Ave and in the area between the two existing concrete drives. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to obtain the necessary easements to utilize 1 to 1-1/2 feet of the existing sidewalk to achieve the 2 to 3 foot planter. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permit. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 6. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 7. 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. 8. If lighting is including 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 - 9/3/86 -9- (6156d) 9. All underground tanks shall comply with Orange County Environmental Health Standards. 10. All fire protection equipment for dispensing must comply with Article 79 Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code which includes; an emergency fuel shut off switch; fire extinguishers; intercom for attendant use and proper instructions for dispensing devices. 11. Street lights and wheelchair ramp shall be installed as per Public Works standards. 12. All public improvements damaged during construction shall be replaced or repaired. 13. All freestanding and attached signs shall be altered or removed to comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Sign Code prior to operation of the car wash. C-3 USE PERMIT NO. 86-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-46/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-21 Use Permit No. 86-56 is a request to expand an existing restaurant located at 226 Main Street within an existing building with variance to off-street parking requirements. At the August 19, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, this item was continued as requested by the applicant because of a related pending matter before the Board of'Appeals pertaining to the structure that the applicant occupies. Due to the structure's uncertain future, whether it will be restored or demolished, the applicant is requesting that the entitlements be withdrawn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW USE PERMIT NO. 86-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-46/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-21, BY THE, FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-33 Conditional Use Permit No. height limit in the R1 zone encroachment into the side 86-33 is a request to exceed the 25 foot by 2 feet and to permit a 1.6 foot yard setback at 16989 Edgewater Lane. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -10- (6156d) �7 The applicant has requested that Conditional Use Permit No. 86-33 be withdrawn. The applicant has revised his building plans and no longer requires a conditional use permit for height in excess of 25 feet. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-33, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-5 Special Sign Permit 86-5 is a request to allow an additional monument sign, two roof signs and to exceed the maximum allowable square footage of signage at a restaurant location on Beach Boulevard (18302 Beach Boulevard), north of Ellis Avenue. The applicant installed the signs without a building permit. The applicant has been cited by Code Enforcement and hence, has applied for this Special Sign Permit to legalize the previously installed signs. The applicant has requested that Special Sign Permit No. 86-5 be continued to the September 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has also waived the mandatory processing date. As of Friday, August 29, 1986, no communications in favor or opposition to this proposal had been received by the Department of Development Services. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-5 TO THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -11- (6156d) C-6 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-6 Special Sign Permit No. 86-6 is a request to permit one freestanding sign and two wall signs for The Space Place, a concealed mini -storage facility setback from the street and concealed from street view at the southwest corner of the San Diego Freeway and Magnolia Street. Another freestanding sign is proposed identifying an apartment project and The Space Place fronting Magnolia Street. In 1984, Conditional Use Permit No. 84-33 was approved and establishes the mini -storage facility and apartment project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 11, Accessory Structures, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Ruetman, sign company representative, spoke in support of the proposed signs. He stated that if the sign were setback it would cut down the visibility of the project. He suggested that the sign be moved south (towards driveway) and setback 3 feet. Carol Benoit, sign company representative, spoke in support of the proposed signs. She explained that the center needs visibility from the road to establish business. She requested that the requirement of channel letters not be imposed since her client's color scheme included burgandy letters and there were no burgandy channel letters available. She requested, instead, an overlay with an opaque background. When asked by the Commission which sign she would choose if she could not have both C and D, she stated that she favored Sign D instead of Sign C. . Dan Guggenheim, property owner, spoke in support of the proposed signs. He asked that the Commission approve signage on Warner because of the present lack of visibility. Diane Tanner, sign company representative, spoke in support of the proposed signs. There were no other persons available to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Straw votes were taken on approving the staff's recommendation for each proposed sign. The results of the straw votes follow. I1 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -12- (6156d) SIGN A - Pole Sign, maximum 12' in height, maximum 5' x 6' in size. oca ion acceptable since its height will not impair sight angle visibility. Minimum height to bottom of sign 71. Reverse sign pole position so pole is 6' from sidewalk. Provide pole cover. Delete telephone number. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSEET: Porter VOTE PASSED SIGN B - Small identification sign recommended not to exceed 10 square feet. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter VOTE PASSED SIGN C AND D - Delete Sign C. The telephone number shall be deleted from Sign D. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter VOTE PASSED SIGN E - Sign E shall be modified by deleting the separate panel for "Space Place" and eliminating the telephone number from the "Rivermeadows" sign; location is subject to review and approval by the Development Services Department and must be setback a minimum of 3 feet from Magnolia right of way property line. Since channel letters are not available in the color burgandy, the Center's color scheme, an overlay with an opaque background will be accepted. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter VOTE PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-6 WITH STAFF'S REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -13- (6156d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a substantial hardship to the applicant because it would preclude any business identification on Warner Avenue. 2. The proposed signs with modifications as recommended by staff will not adversely affect other signs in the area or be detrimental to properties located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed signs with modifications as recommended by staff will not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan and elevations shall be submitted in accordance with the following: a. Sign A.shall be maximum 12 feet in height and 5 feet x 6 feet in size;'minimum 7 feet above sidewalk; reverse pole position to .rear of sign; provide pole cover; delete telephone number.. b. Sign B shall be a small building entrance or identification sign not to exceed 10 square feet. c. Sign C shall be eliminated. d. The telephone number•shall be deleted from Sign D. e. Sign E shalL•be modified by deleting the separate panel for "Space Place".and eliminating the telephone number from the "Rivermeadows" sign; location is subject to review and approval by the Development Services Department and must be setback a minimum.of 3 feet from Magnolia right of way property line. C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-18/NEGATIVE-DECLARATION 86-43 Zone Change No. 86-18 has been initiated by the Planning Commission to restrict the building height in the R2 district along Main Street between Eleventh and Palm Streets to two stories in height. The goal of the Planning Commission is to protect the integrity and visual character of the neighborhood and to insure that new development is compatible with the old development to the greatest extent feasible. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -14- (6156d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-43 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 Zone Change No. 86-43, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-43. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED C. C. Tiang, spoke in opposition to setting restrictive regulations and limitations on development of properties. Dr. Don Shipley, 829 Main Street, spoke in support of a two story limitation. He feels that when more stories are added to dwellings you get added traffic, more people, and crowding. Harold Ewell, spoke in support of a two story limit. He suggested that a study be done on the people -to -car ratio in the area. Carolyn Beaton, spoke in support of a two story limitation. She stated that there should never be more than two stories in a low density area. Arline Howard, 35 year resident, spoke in support of a two story limitation. She stated that the sunlight would be eliminated in the area if more than two stories were allowed. Michael B. McMahon, 416 loth Street, spoke in opposition to the zone change. He feels it is too restrictive and selective. He has a three story home in the area. He recently circulated a petition amongst forty of his neighbors and did not receive one objection. Lance Jaco, spoke in support of the zone change. He would like to see this area limited to two stories. Jerry Galitch, re-emphasized support of the zone change. Paul Columbus stated his opposition to too many restrictions governing the building of homes. It is hard to improve property when there are too many limits. Tom Vantile, Pier Realty, informed the Commission that there is a large majority of families looking to buy large single family homes (preferably two to three stories). He is against too many restrictions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the zone change and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -15- (6156d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-43 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Limiting the height to two stories in the R2 district proximate to Main Street between Eleventh Street and Palm Street is consistent with the General Plan designation of low density residential. 2. Limiting the height to two stories in the R2 district proximate to Main Street between Eleventh Street and Palm street will serve to insure that future development in the area will be compatible with surrounding development to the north, east and west because these properties are similarly developed. C-8 CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION NO. 9 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-563 In 1983, the applicant was granted approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18 and Tentative Parcel Map 83-563 for the construction of an Industrial Park located at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard. Several- conditions were imposed based on concerns from staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council and affected neighbors. The applicant is proceeding with the project and is requesting clarification of,one particular condition which affects other secondary issues. Condition No. 9 of Tentative Parcel Map 83-563 reads: Hydrology, hydraulic, sewer, and water calculations shall be submitted for proposed and future development. The site shall be graded to ensure that, should the channel overtop its banks, t e overflow would be equally istri uted to the east and west sides." The last sentence is the portion the applicant is requesting clarification of. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Frank G. Waller, 16352 Magellan Lane, stated that his house faces the new construction. If the channel should ever overflow his living room would flood with water. He is opposed to raising the grade. 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -16- 1 - (6156d) I 1 Fotis Georgatsos, resident on Magellan, opposed the raising of the grade. He feels the dike is under -designed and that the channel needs enlarging. Tim Paone, representing the applicant, requested a clarification of Condition 9. He stated that the site will be graded to ensure that the sides would not overflow in case of flood. He questioned staff and the Commission regarding the deficiency of his plans. K. Dean Zitko, 16332 Magellon Lane, spoke in support of the project. He requested that the applicant live up to his agreement and not grade above the channel. Cal Faello, 16351 Magellan Lane, feels that the applicant should not be allowed to grade above the channel. An agreement has been made and it should be abided by. Robert Hardin, 162412 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the land buffer. He feels there are numerous violations on the project. He stated that his retaining wall would not hold water in case of flood. The wall was not designed for that purpose. Mary Baroglio, 16282 Magellan, requested that the applicant not be allowed to raise the levy. she also stated that the block retaining wall on her property was not designed to hold water. Tim Paone, representing the applicant, stated that the block wall should not be a concern. In case of overflow the water will be equally distributed, as stated in the condition. Lee Miller, resident, questioned the Commission regarding the flood control channel improvement project. He stated that if the City would make their improvements to the channel it would alleviate the residents concerns. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangar gave a report on the results of the sub -committee meeting held on August 27, 1986. He stated that the applicant is trying to comply with all of the conditions. A spillway is being proposed so that both sides will share overflowing equally. He further stated that the applicant is willing to seal the resident's rear block walls to assist in the avoiding of flooding of their property. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -17- (6156d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY.LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S POSITION THAT THE GRADING SHALL BE LEVEL WITH NO PORTION OF THE GRADE PROJECTING ABOVE THE CHANNEL TOP, BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED INTERPRETATION FINDINGS: a. Adjacent R1 property is presently 2-1/2 feet below the existing grade of the Industrial Park. b. Adding 1-1/2 feet of grading to the property will not meet the intent of equal distribution of overflow to the east and west sides should the channel overtop its banks. C. The block wall on the residents property to the west shall not be considered as a retaining wall for overflow purposes. C-9 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-4/USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 Zone Change No. 86-4 is a request to rezone block "B" to allow drilling activities. ;Both Block "A" and "B". are currently zoned for oil operations, excluding drilling of oil wells, which permits existing oil wells and oil related functions including production, processing, storage, etc. subject to approval of a use permit. Use Permit No. 86-7 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation on both blocks. On May 20, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 12746 and Tentative Tract 12747 to consolidate 20 lots and an alley into one lot on each block. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-1) was prepared assessing the environmental effects relative to the zone change and use permit. The environmental impact report represents a detailed assessment of the project, project -related impacts, alternatives and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -18- (6156d) SPECIFIC PLAN: The project area is within the Oldtown Specific Plan. All requirements of the Specific Plan are being complied with. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dean Albright addressed the concerns of the Environmental Board. They included: truck traffic, landscaping, water quality, safety from fire or explosion. Spencer Sheldon, representing Angus Petroleum, spoke in support of the project. He explained that Angus Petroleum wants a project that is in full conformance with all plans and codes and wants a working relationship with the adjacent neighbors that will guarantee protection of property owner's rights and that will provide a model for oil consolidation. Mark Conley, 21336 Baycrest Circle, realtor in the area, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the project will be detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Peter Fassnacht, 617 Ariana Circle, opposes any project that impacts people. Alex Pavlin, 1901 Delaware, opposed the project because it will ruin his view and he will have noise 21 hours a day. Rose Schnider, 1810 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels that tankers in a residential neighborhood will create an unsafe situation. Dolores Walton, 1817 California Street, opposed the project on legal grounds. She stated that there are unfinished streets present at this date. Leslie Cushing, 1811 California Street, expressed his opposition. Sam Lawrence, owns property at 1717 Delaware. He is opposed to the project because of the potential fire hazards, earthquake results, and also expressed concern regarding the hazardous water and oil runoff. Frank Rosen, 1917 Huntington Street, opposed the project because of the creation of a hazardous situation for children going to school in the neighborhood and children waiting at bus stops due to the increased traffic. He was also concerned about leaks from the escaping gas from the wells. Jason Rosen, 1917 Huntington Street, expressed concern for the youth in the area, sound pollution, health hazards, safety and traffic. Lucille Battu Lawrence, owner of 1717 Delaware, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels the project will create a fire hazard. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -19- (6156d) Tom Northrop, 1810 Delaware, expressed his opposition to the project because of the pollution, traffic, and earthquake dangers. Arnold Alvarez, 15592 Dawson Lane, stated that he feels the property owners are being mislead. George Corry, 1801 California Street, opposes the project. He feels an oil production site will not fit into a residential neighborhood because it will be too -noisy and the resident's privacy will be eliminated. Lisa Borel, 1920 Alsuna Lane, opposes the project because it will disrupt the ecology and environment and create health hazards. Linda .J. Melton, 1322,A'rch Lane, former employee of a Texas oil company, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels the environmental impact report done on the project is inadequate because it,did not fully cover the impacts (e.g. noise/pollution from the heavy industry and work crews). She further stated that she feels the project will ruin the quality of life in the area. Mart Hartmann, 1809 California Street, expressed his opposition to the project. Nancy Koogles, 1824 Delaware, feels the project is a threatening situation to the neighborhood. John Moseman, 1824 Delaware, spoke in opposition to the project. Mickey Shafer, 13 year resident at 1818 Delaware, spoke in support of the project. She feels that the project will be beneficial to the neighborhood and that the property owners knew when they bought their property that the site was an oil well site. She feels the project will clean up the area which has become trashy and a "four-wheel haven" for week -end drivers. She asked that the residents take a long look at the proposed project before completely stating opposition. She feels it could be worse. Linda Hartleib, 17931 Shoreham, spoke in support of the project. She feels the proposed consolidation project will be an improvement to what already exists. She feels that'the oil wells existing in the City are becoming "eye sores" and that they need cleaning up. Stephen Murphy, 1802 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He owns oil rights on his property and would receive royalties from the drilling but does not feel that it would be worth it,'considering the risks that would have to be taken. Don'Griswold, 1906 California Street, spoke in support to the project. He stated that there is already excessive noise and traffic in the neighborhood. When he purchased his property he was well aware that the site was oil property. Lynn Moseman, 1716 Delaware, spoke in opposition to the project. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -20- (6156d) 1 LI F Michael Kacoian, 1803 California Street, opposes the project because he feels there are no guarantees for safety or for the increased valuation of his property. G. T. Lee, 1916 California Street, employed as an engineer for an oil company, opposes the project. He did not feel the environmental impact report contained accurate facts. R. J.` Serra, resident for 15 years at 1717 California Street. He owns several units in the area and feels the project would create a financial loss for him. He feels his tenants would move out because of the oil wells/drilling. Michael Craig, 1807 California Street, opposes the project because of the impending parking problems. Burt Sehler, M.D., 1713 Delaware, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the project would be hazardous to health due to the toxic gases emitted from the wells. He stated that it would be like building a nuclear power plant in a residential area. He also feels that there would not be proper fire protection in the City for a project such as this one and not enough insurance to cover lawsuits resulting from losses in such a fire. Leo Shaffer, resident in the area, opposes the project. He would receive the mineral rights royalties from the project but does not feel the risk to his life would be worth the revenues. Spencer Sheldon, representing the applicant, expressed his concerns to the remarks made by the residents in the area. He feels that the project being proposed is completely opposite of what the public is foreseeing. He stated that there have been 50 conditions of approval imposed on his project and that all 50 have been complied with. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. A lengthy discussion among the Commission ensued. They unanimously agreed that the project would be detrimental to the existing neighborhood and additional findings were proposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir None Porter None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -21- (6156d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-4 WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO DENY USE PERMIT NO. 86-7, WITH REVISED FINDINGS,.BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-4: 1. A change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two -ON (Oil Operations excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan District Two-01" (Oil Operations including Oil Drilling) will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding residential area. The 24 hour oil drilling operations for 18 to 36 months will have a negative impact upon the residential neighborhood by creating additional noise day and night, and generating undesirable truck traffic. 2. The proposed zone change is contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan because of the following inconsistencies: a. Truck traffic noise would increase in a residential district (2.3.4 - Traffic Noise W . b. Heavy trucks will be utilizing Delaware Street which is considered a residential street (2.3.4 - Traffic Noise #7). c. Truck traffic on Delaware Street will have an adverse environmental effect upon the adjacent residential uses d. Truck traffic in a residential district increases the conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and trucks (3.1.2.2-1 and 5). e. Truck traffic through a residential neighborhood and on residential streets is considered inadequate ingress and egress to the site and does not protect the residential neighborhood (3.1.4.1.4). PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -22- (6156d) 1 3. The proposed zone change is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan because the proposed oil operation entails up to 60 wells which is considered a resource production use and is not designated as being consistent in residential districts (Consistency Matrix). 4. The mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Impact Report do not adequately address the negative impacts upon the residential neighborhood based upon the following issues: a. Noise b. Delivery Trucks c. Lights d. Twenty-four hour timetable for drilling e. View from second story homes f. Aesthetics g. Earthquake/geological/subsidence h. Blow Out 5. The 24-hour drilling is not compatible with the Oldtown Specific Plan which allows low and medium density residential. 6. Heavy truck traffic in the area would make it a safety hazard to neighborhood children going to school and at bus stops. 7. The proposed oil operation is not considered just a project of consolidation but rather a creation of a new oil field which is a major industrial use and not compatible in a residential neighborhood. 8. The projected revenue from the proposed consolidated oil operation does not offset or justify the detrimental effect on the quality of life in an established residential neighborhood. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-7: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. The impact of noise, truck traffic and night lighting will have an adverse impact upon the residential neighborhood. 2. The 24-hour drilling is not compatible with the residential neighborhood due to the increase of noise from the drilling rigs at night. 3. In a residential neighborhood the proposed 24 hour drilling is a heavy industrial use which is not considered similar to a typical residential construction project as discussed in the draft EIR because a construction project operates 8 to 10 hours per day and 5 to 6 days per week, not 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -23- (6156d) 4. The proposed oil operation is not consistent with the General Plan based on the findings outlined under the zone change. 5. The proposed 20 year drilling operation is considered an industrial use which is not compatible in a residential neighborhood. C-10 TENTATIVE TRACT 12863 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35 Tentative Tract 12863 is a request to subdivide a 15.8 acre site, located on the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Atlanta Avenue, into 73 lots with private streets. Single family homes will be developed on 71 lots in a two -phased process; 61 homes in Phase I, 10 in Phase II. The remaining two lots will be retained by the Laguna Beach County Water District. The property is located within a floodplain, the lowest habitable building floor must be 11 feet above sea level. The average site elevation is 5 feet 6 inches above sea level, therefore the existing grade must be'ra'ised approximately 5 feet 6 inches. This reduces the vertical buildable distance allowed under current building height requirements. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-35 is a request to allow an average building height of up to 30 feet in order to compensate for this loss in allowable building height. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-40 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 12863 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-35, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-40. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-10 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT 12863 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35 TO THE SEPTEMBER 91 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir None Porter None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -24- (6156d) C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27 Code Amendment No. 86-27 is being processed as a result of Planning Commission direction on June 3, 1986. At that meeting, staff presented several issues of concern and identified changes that could be made in the code for second unit additions. Staff was directed to incorporate one item in a code amendment, that of prohibiting the separate exterior entrance to the second unit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-11 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27 TO THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-3 NO. 86-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21 IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2, and Zone Change No. 86-21 is a request for an amendment to redesignate 10.1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. Zone Change 86-21 has been filed by the applicant to be processed concurrently with the amendment request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3 was prepared in conjunction with, and covered by, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2. Environmental Impact Report 86-2 was posted for a 45-day review period to end on September 1, 1986. To date, no written comments have been received. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -25- (6156d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21 TO THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY•THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood NOES: Rowe, Winchell, ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Schumacher, Mirjahangir Due to the agenda items scheduled for the September 9, 1986 Planning Commission meeting it was felt by the Commission that Public Hearing Item No. 12 would be better scheduled for the September 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21 TO THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1986; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Livengood Porter None Schumacher, Erskine, Mirjahangir D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: E. F. None DISCUSSION ITEMS: None PENDING ITEMS LIST The following items were added to the Pending Items List for follow up: 1. 935 TENTH STREET - Closely monitor rebuilding of outside stairs and deck. Must be rebuilt as originally planned, must be architecturally compatible and the paint must match the rest of the structure. 2. 9TH. STREET (100 BLOCK) - House has been sitting on stilts, what is the status. 3. HUNTINGTON VILLAGE WAY - PRIVATE STREET IN OLD WORLD 1 PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -26- (6156d) 1 G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1:45 TO THE SEPTEMBER 91 1986 STUDY SESSION (PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT - DOWNTOWN PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AT 6:00 PM AND THE SCHEDULED ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: mes W. Palin, Secretary Tom Livb4111 0 , airm n kla PC Minutes - 9/3/86 -27- (6156d)