HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-16APPROVED 10/7/86
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1986 - 5:30 PM
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN LIVENGOOD TO NEW COMMISSIONER, KENT PIERCE, WHO
WILL BE REPLACING JEAN SCHUMACHER.
P P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
P
Mirjahangir
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A-1 Minutes of August 26, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST
26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Pierce
MOTION PASSED
A-2 Minutes of September 3, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS AMENDED, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Porter, Pierce
MOTION PASSED
i
A-3 Minutes of September 9, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Porter, Mirjahangir, Pierce
MOTION PASSED
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS:
B-1 REPLACEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING ANGUS PETROLEUM
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPOINT
COMMISSIONER PORTER AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 6, 1986 ON THE ANGUS PETROLEUM
PROJECT, WITH CHAIRMAN LIVENGOOD AS THE ALTERNATE, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
B-2 NEW PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO NOMINATE AND
ELECT COMMISSIONER PORTER AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Porter
MOTION PASSED
n
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -2- (6307d)
Ll
B-3 RESOLUTION, PLAQUE AND PRESENTATION TO JEAN SCHUMACHER
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO PREPARE
RESOLUTION AND HAVE A PLAQUE MADE UP AND PRESENTED TO JEAN
SCHUMACHER AT THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSON MEETING
YEARS OF DEDICATION AND SERVICE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine,
Mirjahangir, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
B-4 STATE WIDE INVESTORS INC.
A
FOR 6
Presentation to be made by the State Wide Investors Inc. regarding
the Ascon Landfill project will be delayed until another scheduled
Planning Commission meeting due to the length of tonight's agenda.
B-5 APPEAL OF USE PERMIT 86-61
Chairman Livengood expressed his concerns regarding Use Permit No.
86-61, a 2,500 square foot oil exchange station located at the
southwest corner of Brookhurst and Adams, that had been acted on at
a previous Board of Zoning Adjustment's meeting. Due to the number
of objections expressed during the meeting by adjacent neighbors and
the closeness of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's vote, he asked
staff if they felt an appeal was in order. Staff informed Chairman
Livengood that an appeal had already been filed by Mayor Mandic.
Chairman Livengood's stated that his concerns were satisfied.
B-6 MOODY CIRCLE SUBCOMMITTEE
Staff was directed to schedule a subcommittee meeting within the
next 5 to 6 days on the Moody Circle issue. Commissioners Erskine
and Livengood will represent the Planning Commission at the meeting.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -3- (6307d)
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
C-1 TENTATIVE TRACT 12863 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35
APPLICANT: SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
Tentative Tract 12863 is a request to subdivide a 15.8 acre site
into 73 lots with private streets at the southeast corner of
Magnolia Street and Atlanta Avenue. 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.
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.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Ron Pattinson, representing Sand Dollar Development, spoke in
support of the project and was available to answer any questions.
Randy Blanchard, President - Sand Dollar Development, spoke in
support of the project.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
It was suggested that a finding be added regarding the granting of
the conditional use permit for an increased building height due to
the elevated grade necessary for floodproofing purposes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE
TRACT 12863, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 86-40, WITH ADDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION PASSED
Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -4- (6307d)
1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12863:
1. The proposed subdivision of this 15.8 acre site into 73 lots
conforms to the R1 zoning requirements. Each lot is greater
than 6,000 square feet in size and generally rectangular in
shape.
2. The proposed 73 lot subdivision is consistent with the
objectives and policies of the General Plan. Single family
homes will be developed within the subdivision which is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Low Density Residential.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and
type of development. Proposed density is 4.2 units per gross
acre and will more than adequately accommodate single family
residential development. The import of fill material will
raise the habitable floor area above the minimum flood level
requirements. The site is bounded by Magnolia Street to the
west and Atlanta Avenue to the north for vehicle access.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35:
1. The proposed building height up to 29 feet 6 inches will not be
detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and
convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood,
or to the value of the property and improvements in the
neighborhood. The property is bounded by Magnolia Street and
Atlanta Avenue to the west and north which are 100 feet right
of ways; a 150 foot wide flood control channel to the east; and
a field for Edison High School to the south. Development on
the lots will conform with all other provisions of the R1
zoning code.
2. The conditional use permit for building height will be
compatible with existing and proposed uses in the vicinity.
Along with the setbacks outlined in condition #1, an additional
10-15 foot landscape buffer will be provided on the subject
site along both street frontages. Also, there are two-story
homes to the north and west.
3. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
4. Granting of the conditional use permit for an increased
building height is necessary to accommodate a split-level,
two-story residence on property which has a required elevated
grade for floodproofing purposes.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -5- (6307d)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12863:
1. A revised tentative tract and plot plan layout shall be
submitted depicting the modifications described herein:
a. A minimum 10 foot wide landscape buffer along Magnolia as
part of Phase II.
b. A minimum 5 foot wide landscaped buffer (slope or terraced)
along the west side of lots 13, 38 and 61 and the east side
of lots 49, 50, 62 and 69.
2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Department of Development Services
prior to the issuance of any building permits for all commonly
owned areas.
a. The landscaped slopes along Magnolia and Atlanta and on
interior streets should be designated as slope easements
and incorporated into the street right-of-way. The
responsibility to be upon the homeowners association to
maintain and addressed in the CC&R's. Proper agreements
shall be consumated between the City and the developer to
maintain the landscaping in public streets.
b. Special treatment of periphery walls on Magnolia and
Atlanta to include undulation and movement in the wall with
cut out areas for additional landscaping. The wall shall
be constructed and treated (plaster) so as to match the
mediterrean architecture.
c. The Phase II site shall be planted with grass and
automatically irrigated. The applicant shall be
responsible for on going maintenance of the site. A
landscape easement shall be obtained from the property
owner by the applicant prior to occupancy of first house.
3. Design of gated entryway must be approved by Public Works
Department and Development Services Department.
a. Adequate parking and/or separate drive -through lane for
guests shall be provided to eliminate vehicle traffic
conflict between homeowners and visitors at entryway.
b. "Statement Architecture" should be incorporated into the
main entry gate area to highlight the theme of the
development.
4. Bike lane on Magnolia shall be incorporated into street design
to satisfaction of Public Works.
5. Access rights to Magnolia and Atlanta shall be dedicated to the
City.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -6- (6307d)
6. Street improvements and landscaping on Magnolia and Atlanta
shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Public Works
Department in concurrence with the development of Phase I.
7. Install and dedicate water system in interior streets to
satisfaction of Public Works Department.
8. Private streets to be designed and constructed to city
standards and maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
9. Provide geotechnical studies, soils reports and grading plan in
accordance with city code prior to recordation of final map.
10. Treatment of filled area adjacent to flood control channel to
be approved by city and Orange County Environmental Management
Agency.
11. Complete street improvements and flood control bridge
improvements as required on south side of Atlanta Avenue to
satisfaction of Public Works Department and Orange County
Environmental Management Agency.
12. A 24 foot wide paved road shall be provided from "D" Street tc
Magnolia Street (through Phase II) for emergency access and
shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department,
Fire Department, and Development Services Department.
13. On -site sewer shall be a private system and maintained by the
homeowner's association.
14. Hydrology and drainage shall be approved by Public Works
Department. If the calculated flow exceeds the pipe capacity,
then an on -site retention facility must be provided.
15. All drainage on the property must drain to the street not to
the flood control channel.
16. The medians at the entry must provide a minimum 24' travel
lanes or be removed. A minimum 17' x 45' turning radius must
be provided for turns.
17. All security gates or gate systems for access must comply with
Fire Department Standard 403.
18. Fire hydrants must be installed within 300' of travel of all
buildings. Fire flow (3500 sq. ft. building) will be
approximately 2,000 gallons per minute minimum.
19. All weather surfaced roads and fire hydrants are to be
installed prior to combustible construction.
20. All structures exceeding 3,500 sq. ft. must have noncombustible
roofs.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -7- (6307d)
21. The surface of the private streets must support fire equipment.
22. Roads must be constructed prior to combustible construction.
23. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time of
development.
24. A copy of the recorded final tract map shall be filed with the
Department of Development Services and Public Works.
25. A truck route shall be established to be reviewed and approved
by the Development Services Department and Public Works
Department that addresses number of trucks, truck route, dust
control, etc.
a. Truck deliveries shall be limited to Monday through Friday,
only, between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
26. Single family residential development of each lot must conform
to all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code except
as noted under the conditional use permit.
27. Covenants, conditions and restrictions to establish a
homeowners association and to include the conditions herein
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development
Services Department and City Attorney prior to recordation of
the final map.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-35:
1. The elevations dated August 29, 1986, shall be the approved
height.
2. Roof peak shall not extend more than 5 feet above average roof
pitch.
3. 25% of the homes must have at least one minimum 10 foot side
yard set back.
4. All periphery walls are to be constructed concurrently with
Phase I.
C-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27
APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Code Amendment No. 86-27 is being processed as a result of Planning
Commission direction on June 3, 1986, to amend Section 9110.3
related to provisions for second unit additions in single family
homes. 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.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -8- (6307d)
1
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Kirk Kirkland, President - Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to
the code amendment. He urged the Commission to deny the code
amendment because he feels the current code that states that
"entrance to the second unit shall not be visible from the street"
adequately preserves the integrity of the neighborhood without
unduly infringing upon the living conditions of the property
owners. He feels that there is no justification for the elimination
of a private entrance if that is the desire of the property owners.
He further stated that a code amendment may affect the resident's
safety and would be an intrusion into private citizen's lifestyles.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the code
amendment and the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed their original intent of this code
amendment which was to protect the integrity of R1 neighborhoods.
It was intended to remodel the code so that when granny units were
added to residential property that they would remain connected to
the main house and not become separate rental units. It was
suggested that the fire codes be checked to see what restrictions
could be made and how many exit doors and emergency exit doors a
residence needs to comply to code. Staff was also directed to work
with the City Attorney's office on modifying the proposed code
amendment to provide for secondary entrances into the added units.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27 TO THE OCTOBER 21, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -9-
(6307d)
C-3 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-1
APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Precise Plan of Street Alignment 86-1 is a request for the adoption
of a precise alignment of: A) Walnut Avenue between Sixth Street
and Lake Street; B) deleted; C) Sixth Street between Pacific Coast
Highway and Orange Avenue; D) Sixth Street between Orange Avenue and
Lake Street; E) Orange Avenue between Sixth Street and Third Street;
and F) Lake Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway,
by the adoption of Resolution No. 1360.
On August 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.
The Precise Plan of Street Alignment is intended to establish the
precise alignments of these adopted arterials. The precise
alignments are the first step in implementing those arterial
extensions, realignments and reclassifications which were adopted by
Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1. Those arterials were
previously analyzed in Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 in
terms of existing and proposed circulation patterns and traffic
volumes, impact on existing and planned land uses and consistency
with adopted goals, policies and plans.
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.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, stated his concerns regarding the
historical buildings involved in the street alignment. He supports
the proposed plans. He asked if one-way streets had been considered.
Susan Worthy, spoke in support of the concept of the precise plan of
street alignment although she is disappointed that one-way
circulation plans had not be included. She requested that one-way
streets be studied in order to eliminate congestion.
Douglas Langevin, 8196 Pantucket Drive, spoke against the precise
plan of street alignment. He feels that the other phases of
redevelopment should be completed before this plan is implemented.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -10- (6307d)
I.
11
L
Cole Emerson, 306 6th. Street, asked several questions regarding the
street alignment. He asked whether any demolition of buildings had
been proposed, were any provisions being made for lost parking
spaces and he didn't understand what recycle meant.
Kirk Kirkland, President - Board of Realtors, spoke in support of
the street alignment. He urged the Commission to approve the plan
and recommend approval to the City Council.
Larry Washa, President - Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of
the street alignment. He feels that a decision was needed
immediately so that further planning could commence.
John Barnackin, expressed his concerns regarding the Walnut
extension because his property is located on Lake Street, right in
the middle of the extension. He is finding it hard to set a value
on his property. He feels that the street alignment will only
benefit the developers not the property owners.
Robert Trook, 501 6th. Street, spoke in support of the street
alignment. He strongly supports redevelopment.
Loretta Wolfe, 411 6th. Street, spoke in opposition to the street
alignment. She feels the residential parking will be destroyed.
Sheila Blanchard, 21462 Pacific Coast Highway #258, expressed her
concern that the Public Hearing had begun before 6:30 PM, as
scheduled. She had several questions regarding the street alignment.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
street alignment and the public hearing was closed.
Staff answered questions asked by the public. There is presently no
demolition proposed for Phase I of the redevelopment plan. There
will be approximately 58 parking spaces eliminated. If there are
homes located in the middle of street extensions the homes will be
relocated or aquisition offers will be made.
The Commissioners reviewed the precise plan of street alignment and
stated their concerns which included: bus routes on Main Street,
Lake Street, 6th. Street and Orange Street; projected traffic
volumes; where will projected traffic end at; what will happen to a
home in the middle of a street extension; widening involving an oil
production site. The Commission feels that these concerns should be
used as reference when considering future projects.
Commissioner Rowe stated that this street alignment will impact the
entire City of Huntington Beach, not just a small circle in the
downtown area. He further stated that downtown development will
impact every entity in the City.
Changes were suggested for Resolution #1360 by the Commission and
Staff was directed to immediately implement a study on the impact of
the Precise Plan of Street Alignment on existing bus routes on Sixth
Street, Lake Street and Orange Avenue.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -11- (6307d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE PRECISE
PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1360 WITH
AMENDMENTS, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A STUDY OF THE IMPACTS
ON THE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT ON EXISTING BUS ROUTES ON
SIXTH STREET, LAKE STREET AND ORANGE AVENUE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Rowe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
RESOLUTION NO. 1360
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMME14DING ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLAN OF
STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 ALIGNING WALNUT AVENUE BETWEEN
SIXTH STREET AND LAKE STREET; SIXTH STREET BETWEEN
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ORANGE AVENUE; SIXTH STREET
BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE AND LAKE STREET; ORANGE AVENUE
BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND THIRD STREET; AND LAKE STREET
BETWEEN ATLANTA AVENUE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
WHEREAS,
Planning Commission
duly given, held a
Alignment No. 86-1;
pursuant to the California Government
of the City of Huntington Beach,
public hearing to consider Precise
and
after
Plan
Code, the
notice
of Street
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that said Precise
Plan of Street Alignment No. 86-1 is reasonably necessary to the
orderly and efficient flow of traffic, for the preservation of the
health and safety of the inhabitants of the City, and for the
orderly development of the community, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the concerns
of residents over preservation of significant historical structures
and the impact of traffic and development in the downtown area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. District Map 12 (Sectional District Map
11-6-11), marked Exhibit A, and District Map 16 (Sectional District
Map 14-6-11), marked Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, are hereby amended to include Precise Plan of
Street Alignment No. 86-1, to effect the precise alignment of:
A) Walnut Avenue between Sixth Street and Lake Street;
C) Sixth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange
Avenue;
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -12- (6307d)
1
Ll
RESOLUTION 1360 (CONTINUED)
D) Sixth Street between Orange Avenue and Lake Street;
and
E) Orange Avenue between Sixth Street and Third Street.
F) Lake Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast
Highway.
SECTION 2. The real property designated as Precise Plan
of Street Alignment No. 86-1 is more particularly described in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. Exhibits D, E and F depict interim street
sections which shall be utilized for the construction of Walnut
Avenue, Orange Avenue and Sixth Street until such time as
development requires ultimate right-of-way sections.
SECTION 4. Exhibit G depicts a proposed alignment of
Walnut Avenue to be utilized at the intersection of Sixth Street and
Walnut Avenue as long as the existing buildings remain in their
present locations.
SECTION 5. The intersection of Orange Avenue and Sixth
Street shall be designed incorporating appropriate measures to limit
and discourage vehicular travel on Orange Avenue north-westward from
the downtown area into the townlot area.
SECTION 6. To approve Resolution No. 1360 and recommend
adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th.
day of September, 1986 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
WINCHELL,
NOES:
ROWE
ABSENT:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
PIERCE, LIVENGOOD, PORTER, ERSKINE, MIRJAHANGIR
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -13- (6307d)
C-4 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 86-2/ZONE CHA14GE NO. 86-21
APPLICANT: M. D. JANES COMPANY, INC.
OWNER: A. C. MARION
Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3/Environmental Impact Report No.
86-2/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 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.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
A. C. Marion, property owner, spoke in support of the project. He
stated that he has been trying to develop his property to the
satisfaction of the City and surrounding properties for the last 8
years.
Geri Ortega, spoke in opposition to the project because she feels it
is not compatible to the park and surrounding area. She feels that
the project is too close to the adjacent equestrian property. She
would like to see a fair market value placed on the property and
then purchased by the City.
Norma Vander Molen, spoke in opposition to the rezoning of this
property. She feels that the rezoning would interfere with Central
Park. She would like to see the City buy this land.
Mary Bell, Equestrian Trails, spoke in opposition to the zone change
because she feels it is not compatible with the park and the
adjacent equestrian property.
Lorraine Faber, Amigos De Bolsa Chica, spoke in opposition to the
zone change. She feels that the property should have compatible
zoning to the park. She encourages the City to work something out
with the property owner.
George Alvarez, Janes Company, stated that the property should
belong to the City and incorporated into the park, however the City
has told him that this is impossible. He feels that zoning the
property Residential would be more compatible than commercial.
Tom Harman, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, urged the City to purchase
this property from the property owner. His group, Huntington Beach .
Tomorrow, believes in slow growth, which means low density.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -14- (6307d)
A. C. Marion, property owner, restated his position. He further
stated that he does not believe that his proposed residential
development would interfere with the existing equestrian property.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the zone
change and the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners agreed that the proposed zoning would not be
compatible with the park and that there would not be continuity with
the adjacent properties. They felt that the City Council should
take immediate measures for acquisition of the property and if they
can't acquire it to reach a development agreement and make a zone
change. They also felt that a further explanation was necessary in
the environmental impact report explaining the methodology used for
determining the fiscal impact.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-21 AS AMENDED (FURTHER
EXPLANATION REGARDING THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR DETERMINING THE
FISCAL IMPACT), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir,
Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
86-3 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-21 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Pierce
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The subject property was originally changed from Open Space to
General Commercial in order to develop an equestrian oriented
commercial use which would compliment the equestrian uses
adjacent to the subject property in Central Park. Medium
Density Residential on the subject property is contrary to the
City's intent for the property.
2. Medium Density Residential is incompatible with Central Park
which lies to the north, west and east of the property, and the
Ellis-Goldenwest Estate residential area which lies south of
the property.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -15- (6307d)
3. Medium Density Residential is inconsistent with the
Ellis-Goldenwest study for the Specific Plan area to the south.
4. An overall development plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific
Plan area should be approved prior to considering a Land Use
Element Amendment on the subject property. Additionally, the
Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include
the subject property as well as the entire Holly property.
5. The 10.1 acre site would encroach within 300 feet of an
existing permanent equestrian facility. This is in direct
conflict with Section 9382.7 of the Ordinance Code.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO REQUEST THE CITY
COUNCIL TO, WITHIN 90 DAYS, TAKE IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR ACQUISITION
OF THE A. C. MARION PROPERTY (THE ACQUISITION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN
A ONE YEAR PERIOD). IF THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY THE CITY
SHOULD PREPARE A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION PASSED
Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10
APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Code Amendment No.'86-10 is a request to rewrite the nonconforming
provisions of the code, renumber the article as Article 965, and
modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming
structures.
After much discussion at several public hearings, the Planning
Commission by straw vote directed staff on August 19, 1986, to
modify the draft ordinance such that nonconforming residential
structures with up to four units would be able to be completely
rebuilt regardless of the amount of destruction.
The Commission also discussed having a separate category for
projects with five to eight units where some amount of review
be required prior to reconstruction. Rather than further
complicating the provisions with another entitlement category,
conditional use permit process that would allow reconstruction
subject to meeting parking and setback requirements, would
accomplish the same result.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -16-
would
the
(6307d)
i]
1
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Pat Paulk, 3571 Runningtide, spoke in support of allowing complete
reconstruction of property destroyed by fire and having no
restrictions in the code.
Jim Morrissey, stated that lending institutions will not grant fixed
loans on nonconforming property, only variable loans. Additional
insurance must be purchased on the property which is an added burden
to the property owner. Lending institutions require a letter from
the City before loans are granted. He supports an ordinance with no
restrictions.
Phil Ottone, Home Savings and Loan, discussed loans on illegal
units. He stated that illegal units were not included in a property
appraisal. The only way an appraisor can check to see if a unit is
legal is through the City Building Records.
Kirk Kirkland, President - Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to
the code amendment. He stated that statistics prove that loss of
more than 50 percent of property due to fire is slim. This code
amendment will reduce property value if the owner wishes to resale.
Larry Washa, President - Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of
exempting up to 10 units if more than 50 percent of the property is
destroyed.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the code
amendment and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission discussed the protection that would be provided and
questioned who it would be provided for, the individual investor or
the large real estate combine.
A STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN TO EXEMPT 10 UNITS OR LESS:
AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Porter, Rowe, Winchell
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 86-10, EXEMPTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITH UP TO TEN
UNITS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -17- (6307d)
C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-42
APPLICANT: James Lumber Company,
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 is a request by the applicant to
permit'the temporary,storage of lumber on the property located on
the south side of Warner Avenue approximately 200 feet east of
Palmdale Avenue, pursuant to Section 9331.3 of the Ordinance Code.
Section 9331.3 permits temporary uses such as lumber storage,
contractor's storage yards and mulching operations for an initial
period of two years upon approval of a conditional use permit by the
Planning Commission. The applicant without benefit of permit is
presently using the site for the storage of lumber and plywood.
Section 9331.3 also states that a temporary use may be approved by
the Planning Commission for an additional year, with a maximum of
three such one year extensions of time. Said temporary use shall
also comply ;with other code requirements including parking, access
and setbacks. Such temporary use shall also be subject to
additional conditions and or development standards as may be
required by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-42 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. 86-30, it is
necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative
Declaration No. 86-42.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
John Delianarde, spoke in support of the project.
James Harrington, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He
stated that he objected to conditions #7 and #16 (regarding
emergency access and paving the alley within 90'days), because it
does not affect his development. He feels it is unfair to require
him to improve the alley because his property is 150 feet away and
they are restricted from using it. He also explained that there is
access from his yard at almost the exact same point. He also
objects to condition #19 (regarding dedication). He stated that he
cannot dedicate property that he does not own.
Mel Mermestein, Ideal Lumber, spoke in support of the project. He
stated that he possesses 15 feet of the dedicated property. He is
willing to dedicate the 15 feet if James Lumber will improve it.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -18- (6307d)
Staff explained that the railroad company had been contacted and
they were not interested in improving the property. They are,
however, willing to sell it to the City. Staff further explained
that conditions cannot be waived due to code requirements.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-42,
WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will
not be detrimental to:
a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity; the lumber storage yard is compatible with
existing business in the area which are industrial.
b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the lumber
storage yard.
2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach which
is general industrial.
3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land
Use which permits industrial uses of this type.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the
modifications described herein:
a. 24 foot access from Warner Avenue for fire vehicles only.
b. Access route from site, through existing lumber yard to
Nichols Street.
c. Location of lumber stacks, including setbacks and fire
lanes.
d. Location of the security guard shack and the on -site
parking spaces.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -19- (6307d)
2. Lumber shall not exceed 16 feet in height pursuant to Section
9530.15 of the Ordinance Code.
3. Within 90 days from approval, the applicant shall submit the
following:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval.
4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department.
5. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at
locations specified by the Fire Department.
6. Fire lanes shall be provided on site as required by the Fire
Department.
7. Access from Warner Avenue and the alley adjacent to Cedar
Avenue shall be limited to emergency access only.
8. A review of the use shall be conducted within six (6) months of
the date of this approval to verify compliance with all
conditions of approval and the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these
conditions or code sections, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30
may become null and void.
9. The lumber storage yard shall not be open to the general public
for retail sales.
10. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations
occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the
applicant will be liable for expenses incurred.
11. The applicant shall install a six (6) foot high chain link
fence around the site, and shall screen the fence adjacent to
Cedar Avenue.
12. A six foot high block wall shall be constructed along Warner
Avenue for the purposes of screening the site. Landscaping,
including trees shall be planted adjacent to the block wall
within 90 days of approval. The landscaping and block wall
shall be located within the applicant's lease area.
13. The applicant shall obtain a certificate to operate from the
Department of Development Services pursuant to S.9730.80 of the
Ordinance Code.
14. An all-weather surface shall be provided as required by the
Fire Department and Public Works.
PC minutes - 9/16/86 -20- (6307d)
15. Concrete approaches shall be installed adjacent to Cedar and
Cain as required by the Department of Public Works.
16. The 30 foot wide alley located at the east end of Cedar Avenue
shall be paved within 90 days after dedication by the property
owner.
17. 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.
18. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 shall be for an
initial period of two (2) years pursuant to Section 9331.3(a)
of the Ordinance Code.
19. Warner Avenue shall be dedicated within 60 days from the
approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-30 and improved as
required by the Department of Public Works.
20. Semi -trucks shall be limited to "right turns only" onto Warner
Avenue and shall also be limited to a maximum of six trips per
day.
21. Prior to the use of Warner Avenue for semi -trucks (exiting or
right turns only), the applicant shall obtain approval from the
Public Utilities Commission.
C-7 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-5
APPLICANT: ALISHA'S RESTAURANT
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 at 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt Class 11 Section A from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Alisha Lange, applicant, spoke in support of the special sign
permit. She explained that when she purchased the restaurant the
wall signs were already there and nothing was said about them being
illegal when permits were taken out. The lettering was changed in
1985 and the monument sign was installed for safety and more
visibility from the street because clients were unable to locate the
restaurant. She stated that the surrounding center tenants approved
of her signs and that they did not obstruct anyone's view.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -21- (6307d)
Employee from Alisha's (name not clearly stated), spoke in support
of the special sign permit. She distributed photographs of other
signs in the City and compared them to Alisha's signs. She feels
that the signs at Alisha's are in very good taste and are
architecturally compatible with the center.
Ruth Neilson, employee at Alisha's, spoke in support of the special
sign permit.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
special sign permit and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission agreed that the signs at Alisha's were aesthetically
pleasing. A condition requiring external illumination and channel
letters was suggested and also a condition stating that the sign
permit will be non -transferable. A condition requiring the removal
of the monument sign was also suggested.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE SPECIAL
SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-5 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL,
TO ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (I.E. NON -TRANSFERABILITY, EXTERNAL
ILLUMINATION, AND REMOVAL OF MONUMENT SIGN).
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: Pierce, Erskine, Porter, Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION FAILED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE SPECIAL
SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-5 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (I.E.
NON -TRANSFERABILITY, EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Pierce, Livengood,
NOES: Rowe, Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 86-5:
1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a
substantial hardship to the applicant.
2. The existing signage consisting of one monument sign and two
roof signs consisting of 331 square feet will not adversely
affect other signs in the area.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -22- (6307d)
3. The existing 331 square feet of signage consisting of one
monument sign and two roof signs will not be detrimental to
other properties in the vicinity.
4. The existing 331 square feet of signage consisting of one
monument sign and two roof signs will not obstruct pedestrian
or vehicular traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous
distraction.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 86-5:
1. The sign, as depicted on Exhibit C dated July 22, 1986, shall
be the approved plans.
2. The signage shall be externally illuminated only and no
channel letters shall be allowed.
3. The special sign permit is granted exclusively to the
applicant and is non -transferable.
C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-37
APPLICANT: MINOO ETEMADIEH
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-37 is a request to permit an expansion
of an existing day care operation from six to twelve children in a
single family dwelling located at 20601 Troon Lane, Huntington
Beach, California.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt Section 15301 from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Mr. Etemadieh, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the
day care center and was available to answer any questions.
Alice Hill, spoke in support of the day care center.
George Christino, spoke in support of the day care center.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
proposal and the public hearing was closed.
An addition to the side of the residence was noted on the aerial
photograph of the site. The applicant stated that it was a
temporary storage shed that was being removed. It was suggested
that a condition be added to include the removal of the temporary
storage shed.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -23- (6307d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-37 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposed day care operation for twelve children will not
have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare,
safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the
property and improvements in the neighborhood as is supported
by the petition submitted by the applicant.
2. The access to the day care operation for twelve children will
not cause undue traffic problems.
3. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is
compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood
as exemplified by the petition signed by 21 neighbors and
public testimony in support of the application at the meeting.
4. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan
and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article
933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.. The site plan dated August 5, 1986, shall be the approved
layout.
2. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no
more than twelve children.
3. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant
shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services
Department.
4. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development
Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care
of six to twelve children.
5. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00
AM and 7:00 PM daily.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -24- (6307d)
6. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of
Huntington Beach.
7. The garage shall not be used for the day care operation.
8. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-37 runs with the operator of the
day care operation Minoo Etemadieh. Conditional Use Permit No.
86-37 is non transferable.
9. 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 the
applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints
from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded
by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be
based on specific findings.
10. The applicant shall obtain building permits for any additions
made to the residence since the original date of construction.
C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 86-27
APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON PACIFICA DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43/Coastal Development Permit No.
86-21 is a conceptual development plan for the development of a
"Pierside Village" consisting of a 106,000 sq.ft. (94,500 sq.ft. of
new construction and 11,500 sq.ft. existing) specialty beach related
commercial project, "Pierside Village." The project is proposed in
two phases on 15 acres located on the ocean side of Pacific Coast
Highway, between 6th Street and Lake Street.
The project proposes (Phase I and II) the creation of a multiple
level mediterranean village consisting of: 60 retail shops (50,000
sq.ft.), 16 take out food outlets (14,,000 sq.ft.), 4 restaurants
(including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 42,000 sq.ft.),
1843 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the city pier,
and a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway to the
proposed hotel location.
In accordance with the city's Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed
uses and development may be permitted in District #10, subject to
approval of a conditional use permit.
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No.
86-27 is a request for the development of Phase I of the "Pierside
Village." The project is proposed for the portion of the total site
extending south of the pier. The area is bounded by the city pier,
Pacific Coast Highway, an extension of Lake Street, and the existing
beach access road and established mean high tide line.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -25- (6307d)
The project proposes (Phase I) construction of 55 retail shops
(45,000 sq.ft.), 12 take-out food outlets (10,500 sq.ft.), 3
restaurants (including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 32,000
sq.ft.), 696 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the
city pier (22,000 sq.ft. on the south side), and a pedestrian
overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On July 18, 1983, the City Council certified that Environmental
Impact Report No. 82-2 had been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and all state and local
guidelines. The E.I.R. addresses the type and intensity of
development which could be proposed within the development standards
of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Resolution No. 5284 states that the City Council finds the the
benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by
virtue of the Downtown Specific Plan, override the significant
effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2.
In addition to the E.I.R. for the Downtown Specific Plan, the
Council approved, following Commission recommendation, a focused
Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with the Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project area adoption in July, 1982.
COASTAL STATUS•
In July, 1977, the City of Huntington Beach began work on the Local
Coastal Program as a means of implementing the California Costal Act
of 1976. The Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Coastal
Element as part of the city's General Plan on January 19, 1981. On
March 16, 1981, Council authorized staff to draft the Downtown
Specific Plan as a means of implementing portions of the Coastal
Element. The Costal Element was certified in geographic part by the
Coastal Commission in November, 1982. The Downtown Specific Plan
was adopted by Council on October 10, 1983, and certified by the
California Coastal Commission in March of 1985.
REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:
On September 7, 1982, the City Council adopted the Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project Area for the downtown area, bounded by 6th
Street, Walnut Avenue, Lake Street, and the Pacific Ocean. On
June 20, 1983, the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area was expanded
to roughly coincide with the boundaries of the Downtown Specific
Plan. This expanded area covers a total of 336 acres.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Kay Seraphine, 509 17th. Street, addressed the concerns of the
Environmental Board (i.e. parking, take-out restaurants, sanitation,
safety on bike paths, loss of breezes and views).
Douglas Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, expressed his concerns
regarding the overcrowding in the area. He stated that he would
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -26- (6307d)
rather see the downtown area restored, not bulldozed. He questioned
the added numbers of people in the area, does not feel that our City
needs them.
Kirk Kirkland, President - Board of Realtors, spoke in support of
the plan. He feels that the downtown area needs redeveloping, due
to its present unsafe and aesthetically displeasing condition.
Natalie Kotsch, 218 7th. Street, spoke in support of the project.
She feels that the existing retail tenants should be relocated
within the proposed project.
Frank Horzwski, 21792 Summerwind Lane, expressed his strong support
for the project.
Robert F. Cronk, 501 6th. Street, spoke in support of the project.
He feels there is too much crime and drugs in the downtown area.
The City needs progress.
Don Troy, 5272 Allstone, spoke in support of the project. He feels
that outsiders misjudge our City due to the deterioration and high
crime rate in the downtown area.
Larry Washa, President - Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of
the project. He stated that the local businessmen are very excited
and enthusiastic about the project.
Spencer Sheldon, 6871 Evening Hill Drive, spoke in support of the
project.
Bob Davis, 16581 Lorge Circle, stated that he feels the progress has
been carefully monitored, and that although there will be some
problems, this is an essentially sound project.
J. David Winscott, 18141 Beach Boulevard, strongly supports the
project.
Fred J. Speaker, 16601 Gothard Street, has worked in the downtown
area since 1976. He feels that the downtown area is unsafe and that
it needs cleaning up. He fully supports the project.
Roger Work, representing the Huntington Beach Company, urged the
Planning Commission to approve the project. To show the extent of
their support he stated that the Huntington Beach Company is willing
to donate its fee title on this property which they consider to have
a value of approximately $3 million dollars.
Gil Fries, 711 Ocean, spoke in support of the project.
Bob Mayer, Huntington Beach Inn, spoke in support of the developer.
He stated that he feels this plan will revitalize an important area
of Huntington Beach and will generate more revenue for the City.
John Omohundro, a 24 year resident, stated that he feels this
project will benefit the City and strongly supports it.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -27- (6307d)
Susan Worthy, spoke in opposition to the project. She objects to
development along the Beach. She feels it is obstructive and that
it will destroy the City's last beautiful resource. She addressed
her concerns regarding the possibility of destruction due to another
storm.
Stanford Tharp, spoke in support of the project and feels that the
City should take advantage of the present tax laws and speed up the
development.
Julie Greene, property owner, spoke in support of the project. She
feels it will increase the value of her property.
Stuart Omahandro, Surf Theater, urged the Commission to take the
first step in the redevelopment process. He fully supports the
project.
Arline Howard, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels
visitors to the pier are seasonal and that we do not need to
generate more traffic and transients. She feels the City is
creating a "tourist trap."
Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project.
Tom Tincher, 8442 Aspenwood Avenue, spoke in support of the project.
Tom Harman, 2130 Main Street - Co -Chairman of Huntington Beach
Tomorrow, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that
Huntington Beach Tommorrow opposes any development to the beach and
feels that commercialization on the beaches should be prohibited.
Kaye MacLeod, 712 Delaware Street, spoke in support of the project.
She said that many years ago there was high density down at the
beach and everyone loved it. She further stated that if our City
motto is "the City of expanding horizons", then we should expand.
Bob Bolen, spoke in support of downtown development. He feels the
area has problems and that any redevelopment would be an asset.
Dick Harlow, spoke in support of developing the downtown area. He
feels that the downtown area has been rotting for many years and
needs developing.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners had several questions and remarks regarding the
project: 1) They would like to see a parking management plan
included as a condition of approval. 2) Bicycle parking facilities
should be included in the parking layout 3) High quality, non -chain
restaurants should be approved for the project.
Commissioner Livengood wanted it stated for the records that he
supported the concept but would be voting no on the project because
of the density involved and he felt that it needed more discussion
and planning.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -28- (6307d)
Commissioner Rowe stated that he supported redevelopment but would
be voting against the project because he feels the size of the
development is too great and would be generating big problems for
the City.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
86-27, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Pierce, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43)
1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have
a beneficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and
convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to
the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and
will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and
improvements in the neighborhood.
2. The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance
with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state
certified Coastal Element), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the
Downtown Design Guidelines.
3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or
other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. The project
will directly connect with other developments on the inland side
of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the
rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the
project area.
4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly
adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other
adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent
structures and uses in a harmonious manner.
5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another
on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will
provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to
enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities.
6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village"
will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however,
controlling vehicular access to the project, separating
vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals
along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation
system.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -29- (6307d)
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27)
1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's
Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor -serving commercial
standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the
plans, policies, requirements and standards of the city's
Coastal Land Use Plan.
2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and
public recreation policies of Chapter T of the California
Coastal Act.
3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in
a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Underground sewer and water utilities are existing in the area
and are sufficient to handle the proposed development.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and
augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be
modified to include the following changes:
(a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two
stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of
an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop
below. In no case may habitable building area exceed 25' in
height or two stories above the elevation of the pier.
(b) No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific
Coast Highway south/east of the center line of an extension of
Lake Street.
(c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach
in front of the major access point to the village shall be
relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have
direct access on to the beach access road and serve the
convenience of the beach user.
(d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a
number of public amenities such as a major beach access way
adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this
proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design
Review Board in conjunction with the departments of Development
Services, Community Services, and Public Works.
(e) The light wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be
increased in size to provide additional natural light
penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or
alternative methods of illumination including the alternate
decking designs may be required to achieve an adequate level of
comfort and security for the area under the pier.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -30- (6307d)
(f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of
Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the
inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be
compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines.
This structure shall be constructed concurrent with the
"Pierside Village."
(g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall
be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The
accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum
stacking area to accommodate 12 cars.
(h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in
sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the
village patrons.
(i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high
tide line established, on the north side of the pier (405' south
of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way).
(j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first
phase is proposed for the south side of the pier on the area
controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is
proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently
negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa
Chica State Beach. A plan shall be submitted which indicates
the phasing and associated development with each phase. This
entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for
Phase I.
(k) The'ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed.
(1) Retail square footage on the new pier decking shall be 90%
devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high
quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement.
(m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in
sufficient quantities to accommodate village patrons.
2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and
restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of
Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance
of any building permits. All structures onsite shall reflect a
compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the
city's Downtown Design Guidelines.
3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all
proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to the
Design Review Board for recommendation and approval.
4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared
pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the
Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any sign permits.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -31- (6307d)
5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the
parking structure and area under the pier, lighting, public
plaza, and street furniture plan which is in compliance with the
Downtown Design Guidelines subject to review and approval of the
Design Review Board.
6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to
the city and approved by the Department of Development Services
and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of
building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped
areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and
the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection
to the pier. The association shall maintain all landscaped
areas within the project. All existing palm trees onsite shall
remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from
their present location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum
of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area,
adjacent to P.C.H.
7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the
Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of
all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior
to the issuance of Building permits. Such projected equipment
shall not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building
Code or Downtown Specific Plan.
8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered
soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and
laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fuel properties,
foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities, etc.
9. The developer shall submit a list of all proposed uses within
the village and their respective square footages to the
Development Services Department for approval to determine
compliance with all zoning codes and redevelopment policies
prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expansion or
major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, will be
subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor
modifications not proposing expansion shall also be submitted to
Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and
approval (e.g. exterior tenant modifications, public plaza
configuration, structure layout, etc.).
10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with
the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance
Works Department requirements. Specifically, the
at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage
moved into the garage to allow stacking distance
without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No
deletion of vehicular access points shall be made
approval of the Public Works Department.
with Public
control system
needs to be
for 12 vehicles
addition or
without
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -32- (6307d)
12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis
for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic
projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in
E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the
issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of
the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year.
13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control
plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public
Works Department, Community Services Department and all other
effected departments prior to the issuance of any building
permits. This plan should address valet services, shuttle
programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and
egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods
for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use
parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of
certificate of occupancy to the extent that parking is made
available).
14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new
decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction
of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort
should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and
other city departments.
15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify
compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable
Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that
time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the violation is
corrected.
16. Offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.)
shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department
standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific
Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet.
17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific
Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be
offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During
construction of the project, the developer, in conjunction with
the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a
reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access.
18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with Public Works Department
standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of
Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to
issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as
determined by the analysis shall be constructed.
19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full
median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the
site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans'
standards.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -33- (6307d)
n
20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor
lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto
adjacent areas and for energy conservation.
21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as
such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department.
All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no
parking.
22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those
structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire
Department. An automatic system shall be required on all
parking levels and pedestrian ways.
23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure
proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the
Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Fire
Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate
departments.
24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a
provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and
other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically
designated for such storage is provided for in the project.
25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a
maintenance agreement for the public parking area, municipal
pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting,
etc., shall be maintained by the project's association.
26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape
maintenance agreement requiring the developer to maintain all
landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways,
and along the street frontages.
27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet.
28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a
minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from
the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24
foot road clearance.
29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet
inside and 45 feet outside radius.
30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet
and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of
the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The
overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6
inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate
beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject.
to city review and approval.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -34- (6307d)
31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier
and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to
sustain the weight of fire apparatus.
32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier,
subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and
Development Services Department.
33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the
pier to provide fire apparatus with an access travel distance of
150 feet or less from all structures.
34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to
provide the following:
(a) Audible alarm.
(b) Water flow signal.
(c) Valve tamper signal.
(d) Trouble signal.
(e) Manual pull station.
(f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s).
35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report
indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement
for the subject property. All structures within this
development shall be constructed in compliance with the
G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations
for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated
G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to
the issuance of building permits.
36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property
during construction and during initial operation of the
facilities shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review.
37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description
of the project's proposed security systems for review and
approval by all affected departments.
38. 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 the
review and approval of the Development Services Department.
39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an
offsite facility equipped to handle them.
40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate
provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the
super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier
shall be limited to the non -summer months.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -35- (6307d)
41. The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation
of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard
facilities.
C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-26
APPLICANT: J. M. BROBERG
Zone Change No. 86-7 is a request to rezone two one -acre parcels on
the east side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 800 feet north of
Warner Avenue from (Q)R2 (Qualified -Medium Density Residential) to
(Q)C4 (Qualified -Highway Commercial). The parcels were rezoned from
(Q)C4 and C4 to (Q)R2 earlier this year.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
This project is covered under Negative Declaration 80-3 which was
approved when the property was zoned to (Q)C4 in 1980.
The applicant requested that Zone Change No. 86-26 be continued until
the October 7, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against the zone change.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE ZONE
CHANGE NO. 86-26, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE OCTOBER 7, 1986
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION PASSED
Pierce, Livengood, Porter, Erskine,
C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10
APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON HEALTH GROUP
Conditional Use Permit 86-7 is a request to construct an
approximately 50,000 square foot, three-story addition to an existing
single -story hospital located at 18792 Delaware Street and modernize
the emergency entrance. The addition will result in a change in the
number of private patient rooms but not in the overall bed count of
109. Conditional Exception 86-10 is a request to permit an exit
stairway to encroach 10 feet and a 2nd and 3rd floor overhang to
encroach 4 feet into the required 15' front yard setback.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -36- (6307d)
On June 3, 1986, the Planning Commission tabled this item as
requested by the applicant so negotiations between the applicant and
with adjacent property owners could be completed. New public notices
have been mailed for this meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the
Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration
No. 86-22 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written
were received.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Due to the lateness of the hour the applicant agreed to continue this
item to the meeting of October 7, 1986.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10 TO
THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SCHEDULED AS ITEM
C-21 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Rowe, Pierce, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mirjahangir (Out of Room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-30
APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
On August 4, 1986, the City Council directed staff to review the
provisions for large family day care centers (those that involve from
seven to twelve children) and develop a revised ordinance that would
be in keeping with State law, but also incorporate more restrictive
provisions than are currently part of the code. State law permits
cities to have reasonable standards for spacing and concentration,
traffic control, parking, and noise control.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING -WAS OPENED
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed that this item should
be continued to the October 7, 1986 meeting.
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -37- (6307d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 86-30 TO THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, SCHEDULED AS ITEM C-3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:*Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mirjahangir (Out of Room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-7
APPLICANT: ROBERT CORONA
Site Plan Review 86-7 is a request to review the project (a single
family residence at 112 21st. Street) for conceptual approval prior
to resubmitting the project as a conditional use permit with requests
for special permit.
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed that this item should
be continued to the October 7, 1986 meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE SITE
PLAN REVIEW 86-7 TO THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,
SCHEDULED AS ITEM B-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mirjahangir (Out of Room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
E. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
F. PENDING ITEMS LIST
None
G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
None
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -38- (6307d)
H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS
None
I. ADJOURNMENT
ON MOTION BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED
AT 1:45 AM TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ON OCTOBER 7, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
APPROVED:
n, Secretary
kla
Tom Liven ood, ai man
PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -39- (6307d)