Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-21APPROVED 11/5/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION October 21, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION OF A PLAQUE WAS MADE BY CHAIRMAN LIVENGOOD TO FORMER COMMISSIONER JEAN SCHUMACHER FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE P (left 11:00) P (left 10:45) P P ROLL CALL: Rowe Winchell Livengood Pierce P (absent 7:30-8:50) P P (left 11:50) Erskine Mirjahangir Porter A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of October 7, 1986 Planning Commission meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-1 Minutes of October 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Winchell A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-10 - Vacate a portion of unneeded street right-of-way between 15th and 16th Street A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-10, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 TIME LINE - WALNUT EXTENSION A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO SET A DEFINITE TIME -LINE REGARDING THE WALNUT EXTENSION, AND TO FORM A SUB -COMMITTEE MADE UP OF LANDOWNERS, MOBILEHOME RESIDENTS, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS TO ESTABLISH A PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS IN THE AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED [J PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -2- (6522d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-78 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-44 APPLICANT: GMP ARCHITECTS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 was continued from the October 7, 1986 Planning Commission meeting to enable the applicant to submit a variance for greater building height than permitted by code. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 is a request to construct a 8,540 square foot minor auto repair building, located on the south side of Warner Avenue approximately 350 feet east of Bolsa Chica, with a zero rear building setback in lieu of 10 feet abutting residentially zoned property. Conditional Exception No. 86-78 is to permit a 20 foot-8 inch high building in lieu of 18 feet within 45 feet of the rear property line abutting residential. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 5 Section 15305(a) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ching C. Weng, 16402 Hobart Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He owns the four-plex that abuts the proposed project site and is concerned about noises related to car garages (i.e. body work, etc.), especially if a zero setback is granted. He requested that a more in-depth study be completed on the proposed project or, if granted, to impose a condition that the developer plant trees along the back property line to mitigate the noise. Margaret Wilson, 16841 Green Street - representing the adjacent property owner, stated her concerns regarding the proposed project. She requested that the Commission disallow any auto -body work to be done on the site because of the noise. She also made the following suggestions: to disallow any trash containers (containing oil/gas, etc.) up against the rear fences; split -face block wall to be used on the building wall facing the adjacent property; removal of the existing fence and planting trees along the rear property line; and to use graffiti -free coating on the rear building walls. Brett Laurila, Project Manager, spoke in support of the proposed project. He stated that the owner was not adverse to planting trees along the rear property line and -that he would be willing to use graffiti free coating and split face block. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Code was read to Ms. Wilson containing auto repair" (which does not include body concern regarding auto body work. the definition of "minor shops) because of her PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -3- (6522d) Revisions to the conditions of approval were made and additions regarding the remaining concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners (i.e. anti -graffiti paint, additional landscaping along property line, removal of existing fence). A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-78 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-44, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-44: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the auto repair facility and a zero building setback will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. Uses on the site are limited to minor auto repair uses only. 3. The site layout, building design, landscaping and limited hours of operation will assure compatibility of the auto repair facility with surrounding uses. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-78: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The site is approximately 3 feet lower than adjacent rear residential property. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for 20 foot-8 inch building height in lieu of 18 feet is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-78 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 1 PC Minutes - 10/21/86 1-4- (6522d) 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 29, 1986 shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Widen planter area adjacent to Warner Avenue by minimum 2 feet for a total of 12 feet and provide wedge type berm with low-rise garden wall on interior side. b. Widen planter on east property line by minimum 3 feet for a total of 5 feet and provide tree wells in central parking area. c. Widen planter on west property line by deleting tandem parking spaces. d. Provide 5 feet average width planter at north end of central parking area. e. Relocate trash enclosure to south end of central parking area. f. Compact spaces minimum 8 feet in width. g. Existing wall and/or fence along the south property line shall be removed by applicant with permission from adjacent property owner(s) after construction of the building. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating two parcels. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection.. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. Landscaping shall comply with Section 9608 and 9730.58 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and provisions stated herein in order to conceal service bays and entrances thereto. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. C. The developer will provide additional landscaping (i.e. 24 inch box trees, 20 feet on center) within 10 feet of the common property line on the southern residential property subject to the review and approval by the Department of Development Services. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -5- (6522d) 4. Prior to issuance of building permit, an analysis and report prepared by a California state licensed acoustical engineer shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. The report shall include recommended noise mitigation measures for the I proposed auto repair use to ensure noise levels will conform with Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. Additional architectural treatment such as metal canopies shall be provided on all building walls visible from Warner Avenue to soften the building facade: Accent stripe and/or reveal shall be provided on the east, south and west rear building walls. In addition to decorative split -face block building walls on all exterior building sides as depicted on elevations, the developer shall provide anti -graffiti paint on the exterior of the wall. Such architectural treatment, building materials and colors are subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 7. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 8. All street improvements shall be constructed to Public Works standards. 9. The curb on Warner Avenue (along the front property line from the east to the west boundary lines) shall be painted red. 10. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 11. All repair work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 12. Hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 13. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 14. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 15. All building spoils, such a$ unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped -to handle them. 16. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -6- (6522d) 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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. a. Automatic fire sprinkler system throughout building. b. Fire hydrant as required by Fire Department. 19. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 20. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. C-2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-79 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86- 5 APPLICANT: MARIS AND EDWARDS VANAGS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-45 was continued from the October 7, 1986 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could file a conditional exception for building height in conjunction with the conditional use permit. The proposed request is for approval of a multi -tenant commercial center located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 560 feet north of Ellis Avenue. The conditional use permit is to permit a zero rear building setback in lieu of 10 feet as required when abutting residentially zoned property (Section 9220.7.a). In addition, the applicant has filed Conditional Exception No. 86-79 to allow an 18 to 22 foot high building along the rear property line in lieu of maximum 18 feet height limit, and to permit a zero building setback along the southerly property line in lieu of 5 feet. Five feet is required because an easement for storm drain purposes abuts the northerly side of the adjacent southerly parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15305(a) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject property is within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Survey Area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed this project and has recommended finished building materials, colors and signage be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -7- (6522d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Scott Fawcett, owner of the shopping center adjacent to the proposed site, expressed his concerns regarding the northern appendage of the project which at its present state is completely blocking an existing restaurant in his center. He feels that an L-shaped plan would be more compatible with his center and would appear as a continuous development. Doming Hsu, Owner - Ruby Palace - stated his concerns regarding the proposed project. The proposed layout of the building would block the exposure of his restaurant from Beach Boulevard. He feels that something should be worked out between the two property owners. Maris Vanags, applicant, spoke in support of his project. He stated that his original proposal included an L-shaped building with the "L" to the north, however his parking calculations didn't work out right. He further stated that he is willing to work with the adjacent property owner and staff on his design. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed that an L-shaped building should be reconsidered. They felt that a good circulation plan would be more beneficial than the exact parking numbers. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-79 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45 TO THE NOVEMBER 5, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO BE SCHEDULED AT ITEM C-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-30 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH This item was continued at the meeting of October 7, 1986, with instructions to staff to separate the provisions for family day care homes and other child care facilities in order to make the applicable regulations clearer. On August 4, 1986, the City Council directed staff to review the provisions for large family day care homes (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. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -8- (6522d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dolores Young, Day Care Provider, 5392 Edinger Avenue, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She stated that she is outraged that the City is trying to impose restrictions on home day cares and creating undue hardships on day care operators. Since only one-third of the public needs regarding day care are being met she feels that too many restrictions will put an end to day care in private homes. She feels that rules governing commercial day care centers should be completely separate from day care homes. Henry Bohrman, 21112 Poston Lane, spoke in opposition to the requirement of block wall fences. He feels that this is an undue expense being imposed on private day care homes and feels that it doesn't matter whether a separating fence is block or wood. Linda Carroll-Bradd, Orange County Day Care Association, spoke in support of separating the restrictions of large day care centers from family home day cares. She feels that requiring block walls to separate properties is unfair and that the enrollment numbers should be established by the State instead of the City. She also stated that the hours of operation in a private home day care cannot be set hours as they are in large commercial centers. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed code amendment and the public hearing was closed. Straw votes were taken on each numbered provision to either leave as it, delete or amend. The provisions would be as follows: Family day care homes for more than six children are subject to the following provisions: (1) Seventy-five square feet of outdoor play area per child. Thirty five square feet of indoor play area per child. Outdoor play area shall be grassed and enclosed by a five foot high fence or wall. Any gate entry shall be securely fastened. (2) The total enrollment for the family day care home shall be pursuant to state law. (3) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Orange County Social Services License, including Fire Department clearance, prior to the operation of the family day care home. (4) Such facility shall not be located closer than 600 feet to another large family day care center home. (5) Garages shall not be used in conjunction with the family day care home activities and cannot be used in calculating minimum square footage required. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -9- (6522d) (6) Loading and unloading of children from vehicles shall only be permitted on the driveway, approved parking area or directly in front of the facility. (7) The family day care home shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, noise control of the Municipal Code. (8) The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke the approval of a family day care home if a violation of the conditions of approval occurs. All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing. (9) Approvals for family day care homes are non -transferable. Child care facilities other than large family day care homes are subject to the following provisions: (1) Seventy-five square feet of outdoor play area per child. Thirty five square feet of indoor play area per child. Outdoor play area shall be grassed and enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall. Any gate entry shall be securely fastened. (2) Minimum 10% of parking area shall be landscaped. (3) The total enrollment for the child care facility shall be established by the Planning Commission. (4) Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the operation of the child care facility. (5) Hours of operation shall be established by the Planning Commission. (6) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Orange County Social Services License prior to the operation of the child care facility. (7) The applicant shall obtain a business license prior to the operation of the child care facility. (8) Off-street parking for child care facilities shall comply with Article 960. (9) Loading and unloading of children shall only be permitted from approved parking areas. (10) Children attending the day care facility shall be restricted to designated play areas only, unless supervised by an adult. (11) The child care facility shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, noise control of the Municipal Code. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -10- (6522d) (12) The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke the approval of a child care facility if a violation of the conditions of approval occurs. All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-30, AS AMENDED, AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH This item was continued from the meeting of September 16, 1986, with direction to staff to modify the ordinance to allow for secondary entrances into the units in order to comply with fire codes for emergency exit requirements. 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. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pierce expressed his opposition to the code amendment. He feels that the current code preserves the integrity of the neighborhood by restricting the visibility of a second entrance from the street, and feels that second entrances can be socially beneficial. Commissioner Livengood supported the intent of the code amendment however felt that the amendment still left too many loopholes. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -11- (6522d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-27 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Pierce ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIn: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. - NEGATIVE DECLARATION N - APPLICANT: SUMMERHILL DEVELOPMENT CO. AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50/Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30/Negative Declaration No. 86-51 is a conceptual development plan for a 161 unit planned residential development. The proposed project lies in the Oldtown Specific Plan District 2 and Downtown Specific Plan District 6. The two zones are a result of the adoption of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 84-2 which established a new street configuration of Atlanta/Lake/Orange. The Oldtown Specific Plan portion will contain the residential structures and parking while the Downtown Specific Plan portion will be used as the main recreational area for the project. Since the project is divided into two zoning classifications, staff analyzed the project by using a pro-rata density allowed for each zone. Tentative Tract No. 12268 was approved on appeal by the City Council on August 6, 1985, and is valid until August 6, 1987. No further action is required at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-51 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written have been 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. 86-50 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-30. COASTAL STATUS: The subject site is an area designated as "non appealable" which is all the area of the coastal zone, lying inland from the appeal jurisdiction. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -12- (6522d) 1 Staff provided additional information to the Commission explaining the density for the project. Some additional findings and conditions were also presented. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Two letters were read into the record. One letter in opposition to the project from Howard Highlander and one letter supporting the project from the Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors. Ken Skolyan, 121 Alabama, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He addressed his concerns, which included: 1) exhaust from the projected 389 vehicles in the parking garage, since his property is down -wind of the garage; 2) noise from the automobiles since the opening to the garage will act as a loud speaker; 3) the relocation of the electric transmission lines down Atlanta Avenue; 4) high density of the project;'5) preserving the value of his home. Mary Skolyan, 121 Alabama, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. She feels that the project is being proposed to close to the adjacent property, the height of the structures will not enhance the surrounding property, and that the project will be detrimental to the quality of life in the area. Don Slaven, 225 Alabama, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that developments such as this one will drive the property owners out of the area. Robert Wells, President of Summerhill, spoke in support of the project and addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners. He intends to comply with all of the conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. An additional presentation addressing the issues and analysis of the project was made by James Palin; Director of Development Services. The Commissioners discussed the concerns and benefits project. Some additional conditions of approval were revisions made to address the concerns of the adjacent owners. of the added and property A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-51, WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -13- (6522d) FINDINGS FOR DENSITY BONUS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50: 1.� The capacities of the City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50: 1. The proposed development will promote better living conditions and environment. 2. The proposed development utilizes land -planning techniques which include tasteful types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design. 3. The proposed development will benefit the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in general and will not be a detriment to or degrade property value in such neighborhood and the City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50: 1. Through the use of the special permit, the proposed planned residential development is in compliance with the City's development standards for this type of housing and is consistent with the combined zoning on the subject property. 2. The proposed planned residential project on 7.4 acres is proposed to be developed at-25 units per acre per Downtown Specific Plan, 15 units per acre per Oldtown Specific Plan, and a density bonus of 34 units which is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and,.Oldtown Specific Plan regulations and General Plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths, and through the use of special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -14- (6522d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30: 1. The proposed planned residential development project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan Standards as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 1986, and supplemental elevations received and dated October 14, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the following modifications: a. "A" units at the southern end of the project shall be two-story. b. The applicant shall work with the Department of Development Services to reduce the number of units from 161 to 159. c. Combination of Atlanta resident and guest entries to be located opposite the proposed Lake Street signalized intersection. d. Method of access from guest parking to elevator. e. Turnarounds provided at secured entries. f. Maximum building height of 35 feet from sidewalk grade. g. Revised garage layout for guest and resident parking. h. Fully mechanically -ventilated, subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade; or, Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and air quality consultant which would mitigate potential noise and air quality concerns of the adjacent residential area. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. A public hearing shall be set and abutting property owners shall be notified of such hearing. i. A 6 foot block wall fence will be provided along the entire eastern property line. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 715- (6522d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans; a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. Said landscape plan shall include 24 inch box trees along the east property line; trees shall be of a minimum height of 15 feet at time of installation with tree spacing to be determined by the City. Said plan shall also include a landscaped berm along north and south portions of property adjacent to east property line. All existing Canary Island Palms shall be relocated onsite and within the main recreational area. All existing Washingtonia Robusta Palms shall be relocated in conformance with the street tree plan of Downtown Design Guidelines. b. A preliminary gateway plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the landscape and irrigation plan and in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. c. A lighting plan for all'on-site lighting shall be submitted. d. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. e. Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector Control District. f. Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. g. A parking management plan to reflect assigned space and handicap parking in compliance with State regulations. h. Plans for Recreation Buildings to the Department of Development Services for review and approval. i. A copy of the recorded final map to the Department of Development Services and Public Works. j. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide 34 units for a 27.2% density bonus to be for low and moderate income housing units of which 32 (20% of total units proposed) shall be used to satisfy the Mello Bill requirements for affordable housing in the coastal areas. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -16- (6522d) The applicant shall provide housing units for persons of low or moderate income subject to the provisions of Government Section 65590(d). The applicant's compliance with Section 65590(d) of the Government Code in terms of amount and location of affordable housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services." k. A materials pallet indicating final color choices of the building materials and product types along with detail design features and shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for comment with final review and approval by the Planning Commission. 1. One set of revised site and garage plans and elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. m. Screening plan for exposed piping in subterranean garage shall be provided. ' 3. Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue from Lake Street/Third Street to Alabama Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 100 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 4. Lake Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 90 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 5. Pecan Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to Public Works standards. 6. An easement for underground utiliites in the vacated Lake Street alignment shall be maintained. 7. Parking will be prohibited along Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street. 8. Patterned concrete within the street portion public right-of-way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guide. 9. All required landscaping shall be installed on site, not within public right-of-way, and maintained by the developer. A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 10. Water mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atlanta Avenue to tie into existing systems. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -17- (6522d) 11. Storm drain facilities shall be constructed as required by the Department of Public Works. Cross gutters will not be allowed on Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street. 12. The access on Lake Street north of Orange Avenue may be limited to right turns in and out depending on traffic conditions. 13. Traffic signals are planned at Lake/Orange and Atlanta/Lake. All necessary conduit for these signals shall be constructed by the developer. 14. The overhead utilities on Lake Street shall be relocated to the new street alignment. 15. On -site water system shall be constructed and dedicated per Public Works requirements. 16. On -site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements. 17. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 18. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27') in width and shall be of radius type construction. 19. Fire access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Department of Development Services. 20. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout the complex. This includes parking structure and buildings. 21. A wet combination stand pipe system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed in all stairways. 22. An automatic alarm system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout. The system shall include the following features: a. Water flow and valve tamper detection b. Trouble signal c. Voice communication d. Graphic annunciation e. Manual pulls 23. Elevators shall be sized 6' 8" wide by 4' 3" deep to accommodate the use of an ambulance gurney. Elevators shall be provided on all floors including subterranean parking level. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -18- (6522d) 1 24. Any proposed trash chute locations and systems shall be approved by the Fire Department. 25. Fire lanes are to be posted and signed to comply with Fire Department standards. 26. Water supply shall be capable of providing 5,000 gallons per minute for fire flow. 27. Fire extinguishers shall be provided within 75 feet of travel lanes. Type of extinguishers and locations must be in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards. 28. All security gate locations proposed for installation shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Department and Public Works and shall include a turn -around. 29. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 30. 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. 31. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lot and recreation area. A lighting plan shall be submitted to Development Services which illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur. 32. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for a building permit. 33. Acoustical material shall be used on the walls and ceilings of the subterranean garage. 34. 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-factor as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 35. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -19- (6522d) 36. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities, port -a -heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will provide a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-48 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO- 86-77 APPLICANT: LEONARD AND RUTH QUEBRAL Conditional Use Permit No. 86-48 is a request to legalize an existing second unit addition that was constructed without a conditional use permit located at 9972 Silver Strand Drive. Since the code requirements for second unit additions specify a maximum of one bedroom and 650 square feet, Conditional Exception No. 86-72 is being requested since the unit has three bedrooms and totals 1,532 square feet. A building permit was issued on August 19, 1983, for a two-story addition to the existing two-story single family home at 9972 Silver Strand Drive to include 3 bedrooms and 1 bath on the second floor, and a family room with wet bar and laundry room on the first floor. Since that time a full kitchen was installed and the unit has been rented out. In staff inspected response to complaints received, code the premises on September 4, 1986, and enforcement advised the owner to apply for a conditional use permit or bring the structure into conformance with the ordinance code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt Class 1 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Marc Granovitz, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the applicants have spent a great deal of money on their addition and development and that they were now being asked to spend a considerable amount more to rebuild. He further stated that nothing has been changed or added since the original permits were granted. Brian Moore, 9932 Silver Strand Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that the applicant is renting out rooms to several people and causing a traffic problem in the existing neighborhood. The home is located on a cul-de-sac and with the additional cars from the rentals there are very few parking spaces left for the other residents in the neighborhood. He further stated that an illegal kitchen has been added to the existing residence. A letter was read into the record from Julie Carman, 9912 Silver Strand, supporting the request. She stated that there is no parking problems or noise problems from the existing structure or occupants. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 ,20- (6522d) There was no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The definitions of wetbar and kitchen were read out of the code. The definition of wetbar had changed since 1983 (the date when the building permits were issued), however it was determined that the added kitchen (i.e. stove, oven and dishwasher) was illegal in that it constituted a second unit. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-48 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-72 WITH ADDED FINDINGS, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MODIFY THE ADDITION TO BRING IT UP TO 1983 CODE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A WET BAR IN THE FAMILY ROOM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The request does not conform to the requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code for second unit additions. 2. The granting of the request would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3. There is no exceptional circumstance applicable to the land, buildings or premises that does not apply generally to property in the vicinity. 4. The granting of the request would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity and to property or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Original plans were approved in 1983 for a 3 bedroom/family room with wetbar addition C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-46 APPLICANT: REV. MSGR. MICHAEL DUFFY Conditional Use Permit No. 86-46 is a request to construct a 945 square foot one -bedroom living quarters on the church grounds located at 16400 Springdale Street. The new dwelling unit is proposed to be located immediately to the east of the existing rectory, and would be attached to an existing three -car garage. A 240 square foot expansion of the garage is also planned to provide an additional enclosed parking Space. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 721- (6522d) Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provides that any church or expansion of church uses be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt Class 1 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Bartlett, applicant's representative, spoke in support of the proposed project and was available to answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-46'WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed retirement suite 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. 2. The proposed retirement suite will not adversely affect surrounding properties. 3. The proposed retirement suite is compatible with the intended use of the property for church purposes. 4. The proposed retirement suite is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations dated September 10, 1986, and the floor plans dated September 29, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code, Building Division and Fire Department. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -22- (6522d) 1 3. The proposed structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing adjacent structures in terms of color and building materials. 4. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. 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. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-47 APPLICANT: BEACHVIEW FRIENDS CHURCH Conditional Use Permit No. 86-47 is a request to establish a church within an existing office complex located at 808 Adams (on the south side of Adams Avenue, just west of Beach Boulevard). Parking for the proposed church will be used jointly by the existing offices during non -peak periods, evenings and Sundays. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Stanley Perisho, Pastor, spoke in support of the proposed project. He stated that some of the conditions of approval imposed by staff were a little restrictive and would like them revised. He needs the hours of worship and the limitation on assembly adjusted. He explained that it would not be cost effective for the church as conditioned by staff. He also stated that he needs an allowance made for special services such as Christmas, New Years, weddings and funerals. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners agreed that the conditions of approval should be revised regarding the hours of worship and the size of the congregation. They also felt that the conditional use permit should be reviewed after 90 days to see if more or less restrictions should be imposed. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -23- (6522d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-47 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO INCLUDE REVISIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NO. 3 AND 6, AND THE DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 4, AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 10 REGARDING THE 90 DAY FOLLOW UP, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTION MOTION, BY.THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: AYES: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the church will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such 'luse or building. 2. The conditions imposed will ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. 3. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan of the Cityjof Huntington Beach. 4. Based on the other business hours of operation and the church hours, joint use of the parking area will not be detrimental to surrounding uses or cause any adverse traffic problems. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated , October 1, 1986, shall be the approved layout. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -24- (6522d) 2. Prior to commencing church services, a deed or long-term lease agreement, approved to form by the City Attorney and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, shall be prepared stipulating the reservation of 93 parking spaces for church parking purposes for Sunday morning services. 3. Bible and instruction classes shall be limited to a maximum of 100 people and be conducted weekdays between 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM. 4. The assembly area shall not exceed 2,000 square feet or 220 seats. 5. Members of the worship congregation utilizing the assembly area shall be limited to 220 people on Sundays, Christmas Eve, and New Year's Eve. 6. 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. 7. Any changes to the conditions stated herein shall require approval of a new conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 8. Any interior alterations shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. a. A floor plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department depicting alterations necessary for a Group "A" occupancy. b. All exits must comply with State Fire Marshal and Huntington Beach Fire Code standards. c. Seating and aisleways to comply with State Fire Marshal standards. 9. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-47 will be reviewed by the Planning Commission after 90 days. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-49 APPLICANT: RABBI ARON DAVID BERKOWITZ Conditional Use Permit No. 86-49 is a request by the applicant to permit religious services, adult education classes and offices for the Rabbi and Administrator of Chabad of West Orange County in classrooms #3A and #3C of Meadow View School located at 5702 Clark Drive. Religious services are proposed to be held Monday and Thursday mornings at 6:30 AM, Friday evening at 6:00 PM, Saturday morning from 9:30 to 12:30 PM and Sunday morning at 8:00 AM. Adult education classes would be held two evenings a week at 8:00 PM. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -25- (6522d) 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 Rabbi Aron David Berkowitz spoke in support of the project. Ty -Juan Markham, also leases 5 classrooms at Meadow View School, spoke in support of the proposed project. She stated that there is a lot of vandalism occurring on the school grounds after dark. She feels that with an evening occupant, especially religious services, that it will cut down on the vandalism problems. Barry Tabachnick, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he knows of other small congregations such as this one that have been permitted in residential neighborhoods and that this would not set a precedent. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners agreed that this was a unique religious group in that it consisted of a small membership (less than 105) and that most members of the congregation would be walking to services. They also agreed that the hours of services should be approved by Development Services and that the conditional use permit should be reviewed after 90 days. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-49, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of services for a small religious group consisting of 105 members (i.e. Chabad of West Orange County) services, adult education and offices within a closed public elementary school will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because a large number of the congregants will walk to religious services held on a Saturday in a classroom on the school site. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -26- (6522d) b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms 3A and 3C only. Any expansion in area shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 2. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum number of 105 occupants with the synagogue during Saturday morning services. An expansion of the maximum number of occupants shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 3. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 4. Hours of operation for the synagogue shall be as approved by Development Services Department. 5. Hours of operation for adult education classes shall be as approved by Development Services Department. 6. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 7. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 8. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach'Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-49 will be reviewed after 90 days. C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-25, USE PERMIT NO. 86-70, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-49 APPLICANT: TONY URSINO zone Change No. 86-25 is a request to permit a change in zoning from R5 (Office Professional) to R3 (Limited Multi -Family Residential District) to allow for the construction of 61 apartment units. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -27- (6522d) The applicant is requesting a continuance of Use Permit No. 86-70 to the November 5, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Use Permit No. 86-70 is in conjunction with Zone Change No. 86-25 and Negative Declaration No. 86-49 which would allow the construction of 61 apartment units on the site. The R3 zoning permits a total of 49 units to be constructed. The applicant is requesting a 25 percent density bonus which would allow an additional 12 units to be constructed. This will bring the unit total to 61 units. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan which is presently being reviewed by Development Services, Public Works and Fire Department. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-49 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. 86-25, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-49. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tony Ursino, applicant, 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 by staff that changes be made in the ordinance under Section 1: to change R3 (Limited Multi -Family Residence District) to R3 (Medium -High Density Residential) and to delete the conditions under Section 1. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 86-70 TO THE NOVEMBER'51 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED n PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -28- (6522d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-25 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-49 WITH CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-25/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 8 - . 1. The proposed zone change to R3 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of High Density Residential. 2. The proposed zone change to R3 will be compatible with adjacent properties upon approval of a use permit for 61 apartment units. 3. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 4. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-31 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The purpose of the Coastal Conservation Suffix is to protect environmentally sensitive areas within the City's Coastal Zone without precluding uses or development which may be permitted under the California Coastal Act. The Coastal Conservation Suffix may be attached to any zone district within the coastal zone with the result that the provisions of the Coastal Conservation District in Article 942 of the City's Ordinance Code shall prevail over the base zone whereto the suffix is attached. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -29- (6522d) COASTAL STATUS: This code amendment will implement the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-31, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Establishment of the Coastal Conservation Suffix appropriately provides for implementation of the approved land use designation Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. 2. The intent of the Coastal Conservation Suffix is in accordance with the California Coastal Act. 1 PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -30- (6522d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 DELETION OF CONDITION 1(d) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 APPLICANT: SHELL OIL CO. On September 3, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-28 to allow for the conversion of an existing service bay within a gas station into an in -bay car wash. The service station is located at the southwest corner of Edwards and Bolsa. Due to the existing location of the pump islands on the site, the applicant was not able to provide the required 3 foot landscape planter along Bolsa Avenue. The project was approved with the condition that the applicant work with the City's Public Works Department to secure an easement along the public sidewalk along Bolsa which would enable Shell to construct the landscape planter. More detailed review by the Public Works Department has revealed that a bus shelter is proposed to be constructed at this location, therefore Shell Oil will not be able to secure an easement in this location for the larger landscape planter. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO MODIFY CONDITION NO. l(d), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED MODIFIED CONDITION: l.d A 2-foot wide hardscape raised curb shall be installed along the exterior property line along Bolsa Ave and in the area between the two existing concrete drives. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS LIST IMPACT OF THE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 ON BUS ROUTES IN THE DOWNTOWN PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -31- (6522d ) G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The Commission requested that staff follow up and report back to them regarding an article in the Register regarding Ascon and available State funding. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS H-1 BOLSA CHICA WHITE HOLE AREA STUDY SESSION - Schedule for Wednesday, November 5, 1986, at 6:00 PM in Room B-8 A study session was scheduled for Wednesday, November 5, 1986, at 6:00 PM in Room B-8. I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE AT 12:15 AM BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ADJOURN TO THE BOLSA CHICA WHITE HOLE AREA STUDY SESSION AT 6:00 PM ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1986 IN ROOM B8 AT CITY HALL AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Tom Li e Jbd, C air an 1 PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -32- (6522d)