Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-15APPROVED 10/20/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 CONTINUED MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1987, WITH REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins, Leipzig, Pierce (Absent at July 21, 1987 meeting) MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 1987, WITH REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 87-26 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-70 APPLICANT: MARCA WESTON WHITFIELD Conditional Use Permit No. 87-26 was continued from the September 1, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to request a variance to parking and select a new suite location within the industrial complex that is closer to available parking. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-26 is a request to operate a beauty school in a 3,100 square foot suite in a mixed industrial complex located at 16321 Gothard. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-70 is a request for 15 parking spaces in lieu of 69 spaces as required by Code (Section 9606). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-26 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-70 for 58 parking spaces with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED William Lee Miller, property owner, stated that he has an agreement with the applicant to dedicate parking spaces however has not agreed to 48 spaces. He said that this particular use only requires 15 or 20 and to date that is all he has agreed to and if a problem arises when the building is developed that he will adjust parking to accommodate any new needs. Kay Garmley, applicant, spoke in support of the request. She stated that students come for one-half a day and that very few have cars. She took an average count of vehicles which totaled 10 plus 6 mopeds at her existing facility. She said that most of the students have their parents bring them to class and that parking is not a problem. She further stated that if any students were added that it would have to be a night class and that she does not believe all of the spaces required by staff would"be utilized. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -2- (9174d) William McPhewson, 860 La Mirada St., Laguna Beach, space planner for the development, spoke in support of the request. He stated that this is not a typical school, the floor plan has designed to include 20 to 30 work stations and that each station is occupied solely by 1 student only during a 9 month program. He said that he does not see any need for additional parking. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Deputy City Attorney suggested that a condition be added that would require the property owner to give up rights to areas that were not yet developed and that would be considered for future parking. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not feel the suggested condition would be fair to the property owner and that she feels a one year review or survey of parking should be completed to see if there are any problems and if there are the application should come back to the Commission. Commissioner Pierce expressed his concern with the tenant improvements. He feels that the history of the tenant should be considered since they have been in operation in this City for 20 years. He feels that it is unreasonable to have them reviewed with the possibility of revocation of their permits. Commissioner Higgins said he felt that prior to development of the next building a parking review should be done for this use and other uses. The Commission once again asked the property owner to explain his agreement with the tenant. He stated that there was a three year agreement reached which allocated 15 spaces and if more spaces were needed that further discussions and agreements would be completed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-26 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-70, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 87-26: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a beauty school will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -3- (9174d) b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit for a beauty school will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach since schools are allowed in the industrial designation. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed beauty school properly adapts the proposed use to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on a site are properly integrated because the development is designated for mixed use. 6. The access to and parking for the proposed use does not create an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-70: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-70 for reduction in the required parking for a private school in an industrial area will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties because evidence has been presented proving that only 15 spaces are required for this use and the property owner has agreed to provide additional parking should problems arise. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-70 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach since the beauty school is approved as an unclassified use in this district. 3. A reduction in the required number of parking spaces will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-26: 1. The floor plans and elevations received and dated July 13, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Show only those buildings and parking spaces which are existing. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -4- (9174d) 1 3. An annual review shall be completed by staff and reported to the Planning Commission regarding the allowed reduction in parking. Should a parking deficiency be discovered the property owner will provide additional parking to satisfy the requirements. The intent of this requirement is to reevaluate the mixture of uses and parking. 4. Submit a parking management plan detailing location and enforcement procedure for student parking area. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. B. A Certificate to Operate shall be issued by the Department of Community Development as required by Section 9730.80 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-27 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-308/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 87-22 APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA STANDARDS ASSOC. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-27, in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-308 and Coastal Development Permit No. 87-22, is a request to permit a three story, 4-unit condominium development on a 50 foot lot on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway, 50 feet east of 14th. Street. Special permits are being requested for a reduction to 10 feet in the required 28 foot wide private accessway, allowance to provide two of the guest parking spaces as compact size spaces, encroachment of more than 50 percent of the building frontage into the front yard setback and reduction of the upper story setback from 10 feet to 6 feet on the front elevation and elimination of the upper story setback on the rear elevation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15303 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries under appeal jurisdiction to the California Coastal Commission. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -5- (9174d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-27 with three of the four Special Permits requested, Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-308 and Coastal Development Permit No. 87-22 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A letter of opposition received from Nancy Crosby was read into the record. She feels that the proposed development will substantially reduce the value of her property. There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed development and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-27 WITH THREE OF THE FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS REQUESTED, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-308 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-22, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-27: 1. The proposed 4 unit condominium project will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and will not be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed 4 unit condominium project is designed to be compatible with existing or proposed uses in the vicinity. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 4-unit condominium is properly related to the streets, drives and other structures and uses in the vicinity in a harmonious manner. 4. The proposed condominium project is in conformance with the adopted Design Guidelines for the Downtown Specific Plan. 5. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed 4 unit condominium project shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the Downtown Specific Plan area. 6. The proposed 4 unit condominium project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -6- (9174d) [ I FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSWAY WIDTH, COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND UPPER STORY SETBACK: 1. The following special permits for deviations to the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan promote a better living environment and provide maximum use of the land in terms of site layout and design: a. Two guest parking spaces provided as compact size spaces. b. Two 6 foot offsets between the first and second floors and between the second and third floors along the front elevation and no offset along the alley elevation. The use of building facade popouts, balcony projections and varied roof lines create a more aesthetically pleasing visual effect along Pacific Coast Highway and interior property line elevations. c. A 10 foot wide accessway to the parking area in lieu of 28 feet. 2. The approval of the special permits for 2 compact parking spaces, building offsets, and accessway width will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood. 3. The special permit requests for 2 compact parking spaces, building offsets, and accessway width are consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the parcel and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4. The special permits for 2 compact parking spaces, building offsets, and accessway width are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS FOR FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENT: 1. The approval of the special permit for encroaching into the front yard setback will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood in general, and detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood. 2. The special permit request for encroaching into the front yard setback is inconsistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the parcel and compatible with the surrounding environment and landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -7- (9174d) 3. The special permit request for encroaching into the front yard setback is inconsistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-308: 1. The proposed one lot subdivision for condominium purposes of this 7,900 net square foot parcel of land zoned Downtown Specific Plan, District 2, Residential, is proposed to be constructed having 15.8 units per gross acre. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation and Downtown Specific Plan, District 2, zoning designation were placed on the subject property. 3. The General Plan is set up for the provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation for this type of housing. 4. The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. 5. The tentative parcel map is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-22: 1. The proposed 4 unit condominium project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 87-22 is consistent with the CZ suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed 4 unit condominium project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed 4 unit condominium project conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated September 2, 1987, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the modifications described herein: a. Increase the mass of the eave overhang and cornice. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -8- (9174d) b. Railings shall be anodized aluminum. c. Provide integrated rain gutters. d. Awnings shall be made of a durable, long-lasting material. e. Front landscaping shall include berming and clusters of palm trees to mirror the coast side of Pacific Coast Highway. f. Property line walls shall be stucco and capped to match the building. g. Turf block shall be utilized for the pathway in the front yard, along the sides, and wherever appropriate in the rear to improve the landscape appearance. h. The trash enclosure shall be relocated out of the secured area for better accessibility from the alley. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. Plant material as specified in the Downtown Landscape Guidelines manual shall be used. Palm trees shall be in settings of 3 to 5 with various trunk heights (i.e. 4 feet, 6 feet, 9-feet, 12 feet, and 15 feet). b. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. The applicant shall provide 20% of the housing units on -site, or the equivalent number off -site within 3 miles of the coastal zone, for persons of low or moderate income households as per the provisions of Government Code Section 65590(d). c. Parcel Map No. 87-308 shall be accepted by City Council and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. d. The subject property owner shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate a reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and the adjacent property to the west. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development prior to occupancy. 3. All existing or abandoned oil well sites must be abandoned pursuant to Division of Oil and Gas and Fire Department standards. 4. The building shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system, installed to comply with Fire Department standards. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -9- (9174d) 5. Building address numbers are to be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. 6. Provide a centralized mail delivery facility which shall be architecturally compatible with the main structure. 7. Security gate for parking area must be provided with a "knox key box" for emergency access. 8. Fire Department requires access from the front and along the sideyard setbacks. 9. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 10. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 11. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off site facility equipped to handle them. 12. All dwellings on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with State Acoustical standards set forth for units that are within the 60 CNEL contour of the property. 13. The method of trash pick up shall be subject to the approval of Public Works Department. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-308: 1. Tentative Pracel Map No. 87-308 dated July 17, 1987, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Show cross sections of all adjacent streets and alleys on the map. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have individual water meters. Also, the irrigation system shall be separately metered. 3. Backflow devices shall be installed on all domestic pool, fire and irrigation services. 4. Construct all required street and alley improvements as required by Public Works and CalTrans. 5. Submit hydrology study, grading plan and soils report 6. CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Department in accordance with Article 915 prior to final recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-308. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -10- (9174d) 7. Street lights if required shall be installed per Southern California Edison and City Standards. 8. Security gate system shall be approved by Department of Public Works. 9. An 8 inch water main shall be constructed from the westerly parcel boundary line to connect to an existing 6 inch main in the north/south alley. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-38/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-71 APPLICANT: FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH Conditional Use Permit No. 87-38 is a request to permit a day care center for 22 children within the existing Sunday school buildings at the Faith Lutheran Church located at 8200 Ellis Avenue. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 is a request to allow a chain link fence, building wall and a 5 foot high masonry wall to enclose the play area in lieu of the required 6 foot high masonry wall. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-38 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Sharon Vestermak, representing Faith Lutheran Church, spoke in support of the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-38 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-71, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -11- (9174d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-38: 1. The proposed day care operation for 22 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. 2. Access to and parking for the day care operation for 22 children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care operation for 22 children is compatible with the intended use of the property as a church and Sunday school. 4. The proposed day care operation for 22 children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-71: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 to allow for the use of a 5-foot high block wall on the west, 6-foot high chain link to the north and south and 6-foot high wrought iron to the east in lieu of the required 6-foot high block wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. Residential uses are located 45 to 55 feet west of the proposed sand box, approximately 276 feet to the east and 256 feet to the north. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 to allow for deviation to the fencing requirements will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 to allow for deviation to the fencing requirements is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-71 to allow for deviation to the fencing requirements will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated August 31, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -12- (9174d) 3. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 22 children. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 4. The conditional use permit shall apply only to the rooms labeled Classrooms 1 and 3 on the site plan. Any expansion in area of the day care center shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 5. Prior to operation of the day care operation the following shall be required: a. The applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department and file with the Department of Community Development a copy of the license issued by the Social Services Department. b. Restroom facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Social Services. c. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. d. The applicant shall furnish the City with 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. 6. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 7. All signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be subject to a sign permit. 8. 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. C-4 APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 87-4 APPLICANT: MARK STEMMER On July 22, 1987, the Zoning Administrator revoked Home Occupation Permit No. 87-4 which now prohibits Stemmer's Tree Service from operating a business within the home located at 509 7th. Street based on numerous complaints from neighbors and violations of the zoning provisions for home businesses. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -13- (9174d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the revocation and deny the appeal with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jack E. Briggs, 602 8th. Street, made comments on his observations of the address in question. He stated that at 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday, he has observed 4 to 5 employees parking and going in at the residence in question and then returning to their automobiles at 7:00 PM. He stated that he feels there are numerous violations at this address. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the revocation and the public hearing was closed. The applicant/appellant, Mark Stemmer, was in the audience but stated that he had just returned from a Mexican vacation and was too ill to address the Commission with his appeal and would like to reschedule to another date. He was advised that should the Planning Commission act on his appeal tonight, the decision could be appealed to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO UPHOLD THE REVOCATION AND DENY THE APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 87-4, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig, Summerell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR REVOCATION: 1. Licensee has not complied with Section 9730.36 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Work on the premises has not complied with the noise ordinance of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 3. Verified complaints from neighbors have demonstrated that the licensee has violated the Home Occupation regulations between the March 25, 1987 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting and the July 22, 1987 Zoning Administration meeting. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -14- (9174d) 1 G 4. The operation of a tree service business with employees and extensive equipment maintenance is detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the residential neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity. 5. The business is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. C-5 STATE BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH As part of the City's new responsibility for operation of the State Beach, the State Department of Parks and Recreation requires that a number of documents be prepared and submitted to them for approval. Those documents are: (1) General plan; (2) Environmental Impact Element; (3) Resources Summary; and (4) Resource Inventory. In order to prepare.the above documents, the City retained the services of Barrett Consulting Group. The draft General Plan is essentially an extension of the bluff top park from the pier northward to Bolsa Chica State Beach. The intent is to tie Huntington State Beach together with Bolsa Chica State Beach as a unified and complimentary recreational whole. The subject beach area has been divided into three sub -areas. Area I extends from the Municipal Pier to 7th. Street, Area II extends from 7th. Street to Goldenwest Street, and Area III extends northward from Goldenwest Street. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 5002.2(a) of the Public Resources Code, the State Beach General Plan has been prepared in conjunction with an Environmental Impact Element. The draft EIE is incorporated in the document entitled State Beach General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the State Beach General Plan for recommendation to the City Council and State Parks Commission by adopting the resolution. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Steele, 16591 Landau Lane, member of the Environmental Board, addressed his concerns with Area II and III because the proposed improvements would be in conflict with the Coastal Element. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -15- (9174d) Lois Freeman, 415 6th. Street, stated that she feels the proposed added parking will cause stacking problems and is concerned with ingress and egress in Area I. She further stated that she feels there will be a dangerous mixing of pedestrians, cars and bicycles and that the mixing should be more fully addressed. Kay Seraphine, 509 17th. Street, stated her concerns with the proposed development. She feels that the State General Plan is inconsistent with the Coastal Element and General Plan. She feels that the scenic corridor must be preserved and that development will destroy visual resources. Loretta Wolfe, 411 6th. Street, said that she is concerned with the traffic circulation and feels that gridlock is on its way and suggests that everyone purchase a bicycle. Dave Schulze, 206 Chicago, feels that more rules are going to be imposed on how to use the beach. He said that he feels more than 1,500 parking spaces are needed. He feels that the beach should not be lined with inadequate parking lots and that the parking lots should be underground on the other side of Pacific Coast Highway (not on the coast side). Ralph Placencia, 121 7th. Street, feels the beach should be left alone and that all of the proposed parking should be inland. Esther Burkett, Wildlife Biologist from California Fish and Game, stated that she feels the document presented is inadequate. She feels the sand dune should be developed for wildlife and that the proposed development will require additional trash cans that will attract crows which is the main predator to endangered birds. Irene Briggs, 602 8th. Street, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, expressed her concerns with the parking pad proposed in Area I. She feels the pad will infringe on the pier and that the view of Catalina Island or the ocean should not be destroyed. She feels that our natural resource is being jeopardized and that because of overdevelopment we are experiencing "shrinking shores". Glen Quinliven, 1209 Pine Street, expressed his concern with the mixing of cars, pedestrians and bicycles. He feels the parking proposal is poor and bad planning. He also feels that the parking at Third and Walnut is the most important. He urged the Commission to postpone any decisions until more evaluations were completed. He would like to see all worse cases compared and strongly addressed. Tom Van Wie, 818 Walnut Avenue, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, spoke in opposition to any building structures on the beach. He feels that there should not be any parking on the surface road and that Area III has not be fully studied. He further stated that he feels the plan is detrimental to health, welfare and property improvements in the , vicinity. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -16- (9174d) Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, stated that she feels major revisions should be made on the environmental statement because it doesn't address the wildlife refuge. Natalie Kotsch, 1722 Park Street, stated that the 14 oil wells in the area are becoming less objectionable and that perhaps they should be beautified and forgotten if the cost is too excessive. Thomas Pratte, The Surfrider Foundation, addressed his concerns with the three areas in the plan. He feels that any developed parking must be open for early morning beach users. He also feels that parking turnouts shoud be developed on the down -coast side of Pacific Coast Highway with the curbs painted green with 10 minute limited parking instead of creating another freeway. He further stated that he would like to see cold water showers provided for beach users and objects to any added concessions. Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, member of the Environmental Board, recalled an incident to the Commission that happened to him previously. While riding his bicycle along the Bolsa Chica he was warned to stay further away from the oil wells that were close to the bikeway. He was told that there would be from 700 to 1200 pounds of pressure from the well in case of an accidental explosion. He feels that areas or trails close to oil wells should be more carefully addressed because he feels that they may endanger the general public. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, stated that he was disappointed in the way this plan has been generated and handled. He does not feel that he or any member of the public has had a real opportunity to review the plan and that the reports have been unavailable. He feels the plan lacks important information. Dorothy Grubbs, 8181 Munster, stated that she was under the assumption that this plan was being developed for goals and policies to preserve, enhance and encourage the recreation use of the beach area and if a lot of development projects and buildings are approved for the beach that it will not be preserved. She further stated that our City is called Huntington Beach and she would like to see it remain a beach city. Chuck Osterlund, 5902 Nordina Drive, stated that he was very uncomfortable with the integrity in process. He asked why plans were being continued when all of the economic studies completed pointed to disaster. He urged the Commission to reject the plans and to develop the resource instead of the property. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the plan and the public hearing was closed. Comments and concerns were expressed by the Commission. Suggested changes to the document included:, Item #23 - Land use patterns/surrounding area needs to be amended to include proposed/approved development. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -17- (9174d) Item #24 - Add to Area I: "to replace on -street parking which is scheduled to be removed..." and also to cover the spaces that will be lost due to the construction of Pierside Village. Item #24 - Area III - Parking that is lost should be replaced in Area II. Area III will not be widened along Pacific Coast Highway and off-street parking is desirable to replace hazardous on -street parking. Commissioner Livengood requested that a detailed study be completed of 1400 cars versus 500 cars going into parking structure. Commissioner Schumacher requested that prior to the General Plan being submitted to City Council that the Commission be presented a completed financial feasibility study and an evaluation of traffic impacts and circulation on the plan as revised by the Commission. She stated that she did not feel adequate information had been presented to make a decision and would like to see a continuance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STATE BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION UNTIL FURTHER INFORMATION AND STUDIES WERE COMPLETED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher NOES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Further comments and direction to staff were made by the Commission. Straw vote motions were made in order to draft proposed changes of uses in each of the three areas. These straw vote motions included: A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DELETE THE RESTAURANT PAD IN AREA I WITH THE FINDING THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE IN THE AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Higgins, Pierce, Summerell STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO PLACE ALL UTILITY LINES UNDERGROUND IN EACH AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Silva (Out of Room) STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -18- (9174d) After comments and straw votes the following uses were recommended by the Planning Commission for each area: Area I• Construct a multi -level parking structure at the existing parking lot site on the north side of the Municipal Pier. (This roofed structure be one foot below the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway and will not extend beyond the easterly edge of the existing bicycle and pedestrian pathway/service road. Provide for passive qnd active (volleyball, basketball, etc.) recreation on the roof of the parking structure. Remove existing concession stand from sandy beach area and relocate as part of parking structure at beach level. Install permanent restrooms with parking structure. Expand the decking area on the northside of the pier to accommodate new food concessions. Place utility lines underground. Area II• Install permanent restrooms at points of access. Install outdoor shower facility. Allow for installation of parking spaces along service road. Provide for vehicular access to service road (and proposed parking stalls) from Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street and llth. Street. Provide for fast-food, take-out concessions (the concessions shall not provide for interior seating). Place utility lines underground. Provide for screening of oil facilities in area. Provide for separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic where feasible. Investigate the feasibility of a pedestrian overpass at both Goldenwest and llth. Street. Area III• Realign and improve (landscaping) bicycle/pedestrian path. Allow for off-street parking. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -19- (9174d) Provide landscape/fence buffer between proposed parking lots and Pacific Coast Highway. Provide a buffer area between bluff edge and bicycle/pedestrian path. Install protective railing in the proposed buffer area. Install access facilities (stairs or roadway) at strategic locations. Place utility lines underground. Provide for viewing areas and seating benches. Investigate extending City beach into boundary of developed unit of the Bolsa Chica to provide for enhancement and preservation of shorebird habitat area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE STATE BEACH GENERAL PLAN, WITH ADDED COMMENTS AND DIRECTION, BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None , ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 87-39/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 is a request to permit a subterranean parking structure that will include public restroom facilities, concession facilities (2,500 square feet), a community facility (8,000 square feet), a restaurant pad (10,500 square feet) and a passive recreational park with beach accessways. The parking structure roof is proposed to be one foot below the level of Pacific Coast Highway with passive recreational park located on top of the parking structure. In addition, it is requested to expand the Municipal Pier area to include 8,000 square feet of commercial use. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The general uses contemplated by the proposed conditional use permit have been analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -20- (9174d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to the September 29, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-39, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 TO THE SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-9 - YARDS AND FENCING APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-9 reorganizes Article 977, Yards and Fences, add provisions to regulate retaining walls, industrial fencing and screening walls, and amends the definition of rear yard (S.9080.137). This code amendment was generated by two recent conditional exception applications approved on July 20, 1987, by the City Council on appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Code Amendment No. 87-9 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental'Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Code Amendment No. 87-9 and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance based on Planning Commission comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-9 TO THE OCTOBER 6, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -21- (9174d) D. ITEMS NOT PUBLIC HEARING D-1 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-14 APPLICANT: SASOUNIAN & PARTNERS Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 is a request to review revised plans for previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-42 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract 12822, and Negative Declaration No. 86-48 for a residential condominium project on the north side of Warner, east of Algonquin. The applicant had requested a density bonus to allow for the construction of 11 additional units. The density bonus request was denied, and the applicant was instructed to reduce his overall unit count from 76 to 65. The applicant has submitted revised plans depicting 65 units. In addition, the applicant is requesting that Condition l(c) relating to the aesthetics of the project as viewed from Warner Avenue be deleted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 with findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-14, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 which includes a two bedroom unit on the third level of the southeast corner of the structure facing Warner Avenue will create an aesthetically pleasing project with a varied building form along the Warner Avenue elevation. The use of balconies and offsets between the second and third levels of the building meets the intent of Condition 1(c) of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-42. 2. The increased setback along Warner Avenue for the southeast corner of the building from 15 feet to 26 feet creates a more aesthetically pleasing project when viewed from Warner Avenue. 3. Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 will not constitute a substantial change. PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -22- (9174d) 4. Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 will not alter the use of the property as residential. 5. Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 will not increase the density of the project. 6. Site Plan Amendment No. 87-14 will result in an improved development. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-14: 1. The site plans, floor plans and elevations received and dated September 8, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. All other conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-42 and Tentative Tract 12822 shall apply. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 BOOSTER STATION SITE - CLAY AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO DELETE THE PARCEL MAP REQUIREMENT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livenogood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-30 - RECONSIDERATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DELETE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT ON CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT NO. 87-30, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Livengood NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Summerell, Schumacher MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -23- (9174d) E-3 CONCEPTUAL CUL-DE-SAC DESIGN FOR DESIGNATED NUMBERED STREETS AT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Due to the lateness of the hour this item was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. F. PENDING ITEMS Due to the lateness of the hour this item was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Staff was requested to agendize, for the next meeting, a report from the Public Hearing Procedure Sub -Committee. H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS I. None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, AT 12:25 AM, TO ADJOURN TO THE MEADOWLARK STUDY SESSION AT 6:00 PM ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1987, THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM. AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, ,Summerell, Livengood NOES: N6ne ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Mike Adams, Secretary K nt M. Pierce, Chairman PC Minutes - 9/15/87 -24- (9174d)