Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-18APPROVED 11/15/88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1988 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega P P Higgins, Bourguignon A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-1 MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1988, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Leipzig MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-8 - Applicant: City of Huntington Beach/Department of Public Works - Widen portion of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue to accommodate new travel lane and turn pockets. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-8 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Kay Richards, 6281 Briarcliff Drive, expressed her concerns regarding compliance of conditions of approval imposed on Hebrew Academy at 14401 Willow Lane, Westminster. She requested close monitoring of the problems (unsightly and unsafe parking of vehicles, unkept conditions of the school, storage of inoperable buses and vehicles, graffiti on wall, portable classroom trailers being stored). She presented photographs of the site. 1 PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -2- (1527d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FROM OCTOBER 4. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION NEETIN91 APPLICANT: TEXAS LOOSEVS Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-25 is a request to establish dancing to recorded music (Disc Jockey) seven nights a week and lunch hour fashion shows five days per week, Monday to Friday, in an existing restaurant. The applicant has indicated that the proposed dancing will be from 8:30 PM to 12:30 AM. Pursuant to Section 9220.1(d)D, a conditional use permit is required to establish dancing and/or live entertainment. The proposed disc jockey (D.J.) is considered live entertainment; and the daytime fashion shows require an entertainment permit issued by the Police Department which must also be approved by conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. On August 16, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 88-28. TAFF Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 88-28 (Reconsideration) with findings as outlined in the staff report dated October 4, 1988. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steven Jamison, applicant, stated a license to sell alcohol and play recorded music has already been obtained by the establishment and the only thing to be added is a disc jockey with dancing. He submitted a petition in support of the request signed by 150 people. He said he would be willing to close earlier than 2:00 AM as an alternative and would be agreeable to a 60 day review. Deann Gutowski, 10206 Ascot Circle, spoke in opposition to the.. - request. She said the establishment does not have enough policing for the area and feels that late night patrons will disturb residents in the area. She also stated concern relative to the noon time lingerie fashion shows. She presented a petition in opposition containing 65 names. The applicant was asked about the fashion shows during the lunch hour and what the models were modeling. He said sometimes they model lingerie however would be willing to cancel any further shows if they were a concern. Sterling Colthurst, 10051 Crailet Drive, representative of Meridith Gardens Homeowners, spoke in opposition to the request because of noise, late night crowds and devaluation of homes in the area.. ,He. urged the Commission to deny the request. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -3- ,(1527d) Jay Goodin, 20031 Lawson Lane, said there is no buffer between his house and the restaurant and he is disturbed by the noise created in the parking lot. He said that the surrounding neighbors were assured that this would be a ,family -type restaurant.' Don Connors, 10174 Ascot Circle, said he-lives.across the.street from the restaurant and that nothing has changed since the last meeting and he is still opposed to the request. He presented a petition containing 121 signatures in opposition. Donald A'. Gutowski, 10206 Ascot Circle, spoke in opposition and urged denial of the request. Rick LaMarche, 20081-Viva Circle; said he has many -problems with the shopping center and does not want any more. He feels allowing dancing will create noise problems, security problems, added trash/debris, and will de -value his home. He said Texas Loosey•s is not family -oriented. Doug Tullio, 20091 Viva Circle, said he lives directly across from the shopping, -center and that he calls the police constantly with complai"ntg.''He does not feel'that any compromises should be made to the establishment -because property, -owners don't receive anytand. urged the Commission'to-deny"the request. David L. Wickersham, 20092 Viva Circle, stated he does not want another "Hop" in his back yard. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Slates stated he would be abstaining since he was absent from the last hearings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NO. 88-28 (RECONSIDERATION), WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood;.Silva,'Ortega, Higgins, Bourgui'gnon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: Slates MOTION PA&SED 1. The establishment of the restaurant with seven nights a week of dancing to recorded music operated by a disc jockey, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity due to potential noise impacts from customers leaving the premises after 10:00 PM. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 74 (1527d)' 2. On -site parking and circulation are inadequate based on the parking ratios and distribution as shown in Attachment No. 7, for the proposed lunch-time fashion show and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. 3. Ingress and egress to the site has the potential of creating additional traffic impacts to the intersection of Adams Avenue and commercial center entrance because of traffic impacts generated by the proposed lunch hour fashion shows. 4. The proposed dancing/live entertainment use does not conform with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in terms of buffer area; the restaurant building is approximately 180 feet from residential uses to the north (across Adams Avenue). 5. The proposed dancing/live entertainment use is not capatible with the existing 24-hour market within the center. APPLICANT: BENCO BEACH, LTD. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 was continued from the October 4, 1988 Planning Commission meeting due to the Commission's tie vote (3 to 3). Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 is a request to permit the operation of a family billiard and arcade center which will also include a food snack bar. According to the applicant, the main focus of the billiard/arcade center is to provide a family oriented, tasteful, clean and well managed entertainment environment. The proposed billiard/arcade center will occupy four suites totalling approximately 4,950 square feet at the Plaza de la Playa Center on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 247 feet south of Garfield Avenue. The Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony and general discussion of the proposed project, suggested that the initial approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 be limited to one-year with a six-month review from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 with findings and conditions of approval. Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, said that his client cannot_ obtain financing with a one year conditional use permit and requested that the permit be extended for five years, however is willing to be subject to a review in 6 months. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -5- (1527d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-40 FOR FIVE YEARS WITH A SIX MONTH REVIEW, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS. FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenances and operation of a billiard/ .arcade center without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detrimental,to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working'in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 to permit the operation of a billiard/arcade center will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because, as conditioned, the billiard/arcade center is consistent with the General Plan designation of General` Commercial. 3. The proposed billiard/arcade center is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated August 19, 1988 shall be the approved layout. 2. This approval is for a billiard/arcade center with ancillary sale of food. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold for consumption on site. No more than 12 stools/seats adjacent to the snack bar shall be permittediwithout prior approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Hours of operation shall";be Sunday through Thursday from 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM and Friday through Saturday from 11:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -6- (1527d) 4. There shall be a minimum of two adult (21 years of age) employees on the premises during hours of operation. 5. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of Municipal Code, Section 9.32 "Pool and Billiard Halls" prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The applicant shall provide a security guard, approved by the Police Department, on Friday and Saturday evenings from 5:00 PM to 1:00 AM to monitor the parking area to insure that loitering does not occur in the Plaza de la Playa Center. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 shall be approved for an initial period of 5 years with an annual review to insure compliance with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant shall submit a detailed bicycle parking plan and a revised site plan indicating the relocation of the handicap parking space to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 9. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 10. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 11. All signs shall comply with Planned Sign Program No. 86-1. 12. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 shall be approved for an initial period of five -years with a six-month review from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and report to the Planning Commission to insure compliance with all conditions of approval. 13. 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-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-34/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT RERMIT NO, _ i _ �. i it V_i ' \ • �� i • \�V� \ REPORT • APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conditional Use Permit No. 88-34 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-27 constitute a request to construct a 32,073 square foot retail/office building integrated with an approximately 817 space, 5-level parking structure. The retail/office uses will be integrated within the structure on the first and second levels, facing Main Street, Walnut Avenue and Olive Avenue. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -7- (1527d) The five -level parking structure incorporates one subterranean and one roof -top parking level, and is intended to serve the commercial portion of this project as well as the approved entertainment center at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (Pier Colony). Vehicular access to the structure will be from Olive Avenue and Walnut Avenue, with additional pedestrian access from a walkway through to Main Street. The proposed plans incorporate landscape planters around the perimeter of the parking structure, and over 9,000 square feet of public open space incorporated in plazas, open air commercial areas, restaurant decks, and pedestrian arcades. The architecture is contemporary.mediterranean, in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-385 is a request to consolidate all 28 lots within the block into one parcel, and to vacate the existing north/south alley. All existing structures on the block are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 88-4 was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed commercial -parking structure. A. Adopt and certify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No. 88-4 by adopting attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1406 with Statement of Overriding Considerations; B. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 88-27 with findings; and C. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-34 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-385 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Person, 822 California Street, Vice Chairman, Historical Society, stated the design is incompatible with the rehabilitated area across the street and feels the economic feasibility should not have been completed before the environmental impact report. He also expressed distress with the loss of the Clark Hotel (a historical structure) . Barbara Milkovich, 6032 Dundee, Chairman, Historical Society, feels the proposed building/parking structure design of mediterranean is not architecturally compatible and the lot design does not go with the Old Town look. She urged the Commission to look at the alternatives and to prevent the destruction of the Clark Hotel. Robert Biddle, 1710 Pine Street, expressed concern with the notification process regarding the proposed request. He feels this historical area should not be sacrificed and that the parking garage/commercial building will be a cover-up for crime. He feels the City should work more with the downtown people. He also stated opposition to the mediterranean architecture. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -8- (1527d) Guy Guzzardo, 505 Walnut Avenue, said he feels historic resource preservation and redevelopment should go hand in hand. He feels the City's historic preservation has regressed. He urged the Commission to condition the proposed project to be'architecturally compatible with the historic buildings. He also requested that a member of the Historical Board be allowed to sit in on Design Review Board meetings on this project. Loretta Wolfe, 411 Sixth Street, member of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, requested a continuance on the project. She said Huntington Beach is now qualified for the California Restoration Program and this project should be postponed until notification of benefits from the program. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, said the environmental impact report is not adequate and feels the property owner, Mr. Kory, would not be able to qualify for a commercial project without the parking spaces in the structure. He said 83 spaces will be left over to contribute to the public and feels most of the spaces will be for Pierside or commercial use. He feels the only one to profit from this project will be private development because tax money is more valuable to them than history or culture. He opposes the mediterranean architecture and feels it is not acceptable in the area (200 block). He stated he has a building in that block that was built in 1904 and firmly challenged anyone to touch his property. Joyce Riddell, 2213 Main Street, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the parking structure. She feels the additional 817 spaces are needed to insure downtown redevelopment. She feels the design is pleasing and compatible. Natalie Kotsch, 220 Main Street, said she is a business tenant in the 200 block and feels the area needs to be upgraded for the business people. She said public restrooms are desparately needed in the area and that Phase 1 needs to be completed. She supports the proposed structure and does feel the design should be compatible. She said all parties agreed on a mediterranean theme originally and since it looks like opinions are changing that perhaps the decision should be reconsidered. Jerry Bame, 2120 Main Street, representing the principal property owner on the block, said his client has acquired enough lots for consolidation on a project with the City to meet its needs and feels if Main Street is completed that this project must be approved. July Walker, member of Historical Resources Board, said she feels Main Street should be completed. She would like to see the historical buildings restored and made useable. She feels the mediterranean design issue should be settled now. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -9- (1527d) Each Commissioner expressed opinions on the project. Commissioners Slates said he;supported the proposed project. Commissioner Livengood cannot understand why all redevelopment projects are so rushed. He would like to see the structure redesigned to something unique with an effort made to salvage the Clark Hotel. -He opposes the mediterranean design on Main Street. Commissioner Silva feels this project will create a better quality of life and feels that it must look good and be compatible: Commissioner Leipzig said he likes mediterranean however if it is not compatible -with the area it should -be changed. He has concerns with the environmental impact report and feels historical resources are important however feels the parking structure is important. He feels recommendations should be made and considered regarding design. Commissioner Ortega said she is sensitive to historical resources and hates to lose the historical element and would like to pursue the State and Federal funds available for historic preservation made possible by the California Main Street USA program. She said she could not vote to approve without further mitigations and feels the design needs to be modified. Commissioner Higgins felt the City should move ahead with the proposed project. Commissioner Bourguignon likes the architecture and feels it is very pleasing. He supports the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY -SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-4 BY ADOPTING � • RESOLUTION NO. 1406 WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Leipzig, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ;L�91 "Ilan=i- A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-27, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.NO. 88-34 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 88-385, WITH,FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Leipzig, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -10- (1527d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-34: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a 32,073 square foot commercial building and 5-level parking structure will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity nor to property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed commercial building and parking structure properly adapts the proposed structures 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 the site are properly integrated. 6. The access to and parking for the proposed commercial building and parking structure does not create an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-27: 1. The proposed commercial building and parking structure -conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the Downtown Specific Plan, and other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed commercial building and parking structure can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 4. The proposed commercial building and parking structure conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 88-385 1. The proposed consolidation of 28 parcels into one (1) parcel and alley vacation for purposes of commercial, office, and parking uses is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -11- .(1527d) 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as objectives for implementation.of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this type of land use (mixed commercial/office) at the time the land use designation of Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards plans and specifications on file with'the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-34 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 5, 1988, shall be the approved layout, with the modifications described herein: a. Final elevations along Main Street shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. b. No compact parking spaces shall be permitted. c. Location of ticket booth in parking structure shall be depicted. 2. All mitigation measures outlined in Environmental Impact Report No. 88-4 shall be complied with (Attachment A). 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State licensed landscape architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), irrigation plan, grading plan and approved site plan, and a copy of conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with the Downtown Design Guidelines and Section 9608 of the Huntington -Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. b. Parcel Map shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. PC Minutes -- 10/18/88 -12- (1527d) c. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to assure adequate parking is available for employees, customers, contractors, etc., during the project's construction phase. d. Applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for the file. e. Floor plans shall depict natural gas stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. f. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 4. 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. 5. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection. 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. 8. Methane detectors shall be incorporated in the parking structure per Fire Department and Department of Oil & Gas standards. 9. Fire Department concerns are as follows: a. Water mains shall be provided for minimum 3500 GPM. b. Four (4) fire hydrants are required. c. All retail portions, and the lower level of the parking structure shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system pursuant to Huntington Beach Fire Department Specifications, with central station monitoring. d. Portions of the parking structure classified as open shall have a class III standpipe system with hose cabinets. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 88-385: 1. The tentative parcel map received and dated October 5, 1988, shall be the approved layout. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -13- (1527d) \1 7143\IM!4 \0 73 40 iXTOY ai •• 14 a\ • • i 741••. 5 i 4 \ W • 4 N i Ticew-Tr-Tre I i •70-Y \ New \ RMNley* • \ ♦ r • \ .. APPLICANT: ANGUS PETROLEUM DSEIR 88-1 was prepared to augment the analysis of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project undertaken in EIR 86-1. EIR 86-1 was published and certified as a Final EIR by the Planning Commission in September 1986. Subsequent to the certification of Final EIR 86-1 and approval of Zone Change No. 86-4 and Use permit No. 86-7 by the City Council on October 20, 1986, litigation brought against the City and ANGUS Petroleum Corporation (As Real Party in Interest) by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, Inc. was settled by an agreement dated May 9, 1988. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City Council's vote of October 20, 1986 by which Final EIR 86-1 was certified, was set aside. On May 6, 1988, new Project applications were filed with the City. Those applications are for Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25. DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1, once certified and recertified respectively, are intended to be utilized for the aforementioned discretionary actions. Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 (DSEIR 88-1) and adopt and recertify Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 (EIR 86-1) adopting attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 with Statement of Overriding Considerations. Commissioner Higgins stated he would be abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest. APPLICANT: ANGUS PETROLEUM CORP. Zone Change No. 88-11 is a request to rezone Block A (Tract 12747) and add the "01" suffix to allow the drilling of new oil wells. At present, both Blocks A and B are currently zoned to allow existing oil operations. Block A requires the "01" suffix to permit new oil wells. Use Permit No. 88-25 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation of both blocks. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -i4- (1527d) 1 1 (a) 'Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt Zone Change No. 88-11; and (b) Approve Use Permit No. 88-2 5 based on findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED (COMMENTS WERE TAKEN ON BOTH ITEM C-4a AND ITEM C-4b) Spencer Sheldon, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He explained the $1 million bond set aside was for the protection of the property owners; if property was sold during drilling operations that resulted in a loss of value the owner would be reimbursed out of the fund and if at the end of the drilling one-third would go to the City, one-third would go to the property owners and one-third would go to Angus. John Carmichael, 5772 Bolsa Avenue, Vice President -Angus, spoke in support of the project. He stated there were 250 royalty interests that were also supportive. Jean Melious, Attorney representing Angus, spoke in support of the project and the environmental impact report. She feels the project furthers the policies of the general plan and the environmental impact report is very thorough. John Van Houten, acoustical engineer for project, said he has already complied with Condition #14 (regarding noise) and has identified 9 control measures. John Westermeier, Chambers Group (EIR consultants), referred the Commission to a letter submitted by his firm outlining the inadequacies of the environmental impact report. He said it is highly flawed and needs to be revised and recirculated. His firm completed comments/responses and the City took the responses and made rebuttals to them. George Corry, 1801 California Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He said the CC&R's for the tract are not being adhered to and the property owner's rights are being taken away. He feels additional setbacks should be required and the 30 foot wall surrounding the project is not aesthetically compatible. He feels the $1 million trust bond set up for protection of property values is worthless since none of the property owners wish to move. Joyce Riddell, representing the Chamber of Commerce, feels the project is environmentally attractive and will clean up the present oil rigs, is financially beneficial, will provide employment and a model for the resolution of oil problems in the downtown area. She urged the Commission to approve the project. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -15- (1527d) Richard Abramson, 1804 Alsuna Lane, urged the Commission to deny the project. He feels it is incompatible with the area and does not comply with the General Plan. He feels all of the sites should be considered together rather than,separately. Jay Osborn, 203 Utica, feels the findings for approval are misleading and urged the Commission to deny the project. He suggested the project be moved to the neighborhoods of the people in favor of the proposal. Roger Fain, 1908 California Street, feels the project should proceed because it will clean up the neighborhood. Robert Biddle, 1710 Pine Street; feels were gambling with people's quality.of life. He is not in favor of turning a residential neighborhood into an industrial area. He feels the project will create noise, traffic and safety problems. Don Griswold, 1906 California Street, spoke in support of the project. He feels the consolidations should be considered one by one since they can be shut down at anytime. Edd Schofield, 1101 Bennett Street, spoke in support of the project and feels Angus has been very cooperative with the homeowners. Kevin Williams, 5912 Carbeck Drive, spoke in support of the project. He has lived near an oil rig for 11 years and has no objection. Kathy Walker, 2730 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, spoke in support of the project. William Trinkl, 1901 Delaware Street, spoke in support of the project. He said his house (all outside windows) face the proposed project. He requested Angus to take $600 from his share of the bond and install double paned glass in his bedroom. Nancy Hartmann, 1810 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the location of this project. She feels there are better areas. She suggested the project be located at City Hall and urged denial. Denise deVines, 1811 California Street, spoke in opposition to the project. She said she -is a writer and works at home and feels she will be severely impacted by the noise from the project. Mickey Shafer, 1818 Delaware, said the site was originally an oil field when the homes were built and purchased and feels the current oil wells should be cleaned up.and is in favor of the consolidation. I PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -16- (1527d). Pamela A. Steele, 1713 California Street, President of Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She said the project has turned into a war between the homeowners and Angus Petroleum and suggested that the Commission put dollar signs out of their minds and think only about the people. She said the promises made by Angus Petroleum are not beneficial to the homeowners. She suggested they change their name to "Anguish Petroleum". Petitions in opposition were submitted. R. J. Serra, 1717 California Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He asked the Commissioners if they would like to have the project in their front yards for two years. He feels Angus is taking all of the little problems and concentrating it in one spot and then trying to control them. Wesley Abramson, 1713 California Street, said he was speaking for the "little people" (the homeowners). He said his home was his major investment and was concerned about the investment along with the safety of his children. He does not feel a $1 million bond is a sufficient set -aside for probable law suits. He urged denial. Mary Parrish, 1919 Alsuna Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. Martha L. Brock, Omnibus Environmental Services, 2134 Main Street, said she was hired to do an air quality analysis of the site and the analysis indicated a major air quality benefit associated with the operations phase of the project. Patricia West, 215 Wichita Avenue #204, spoke in support of the project. She feels the oil wells in the City need consolidation. Randy Readman, 16000 Villa Yorba Linda, spoke in support of the project. Leo Shaffer, 1902 California Street, said Angus is not a good neighbor and that the $1 million bond is not a big enough carrot to wave in front of the property owner's noses especially when Angus can cancel the bond at anytime. Lynn Moseman, 1716 Delaware, stated her home is 100 feet from the proposed project. She said nothing like this has ever been constructed in a residential area and that up to this point the City is unable to enforce code violations she wonders why they say they can enforce possible violations with this project. She does not feel the bond is sufficient, the project is wrong and urged the Commission to support the citizens of the City. Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, asked if the existing oil lines could hold the added pressure from this project. He said that a map in being prepared presently to show where all of the oil lines are because no one knows their locations. He feels this project is wrong for this particular site and that the City should protect its citizens. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -17- (1527d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bourguignon asked legal counsel if the bond could be cancelled. The City Attorney said if the project is cancelled the bond can be cancelled. Commissioners that supported the request felt that a consolidation was needed and that the proposed site needed cleaning up and that it would be an improvement for the City even though they did share the homeowner's concerns. Commissioners that were opposed felt that the oil operation (an industrial use) should not be located in a residential area, questioned its conformance to the General Plan, felt the environmental impact report had too many holes and the land use was not compatible. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY AS ADEQUATE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 AND ADOPT AND RECERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1407 AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1: 1. DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as amended June 1986, and all State and local quidelines therefore. 2. DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Springfield Oil Recovery Project and is found to be certifiable. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - DSEIR 88-1: 1. The economic and social benefits of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project outweigh the project's unavoidable adverse seismic, energy, aesthetic/view and cumulative air quality impacts. 1 PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -18- (1527d) MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1• 1. The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect. MITIGATION MEASURES 2 THROUGH 58 ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 88-25. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-11 AND USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Livengood, Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-11: 1. A change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-O" (Oil Operations excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-01" (Oil Operations including Oil Drilling) will be compatible with surrounding residential uses based on the mitigation measures described in the environmental impact report and conditions of approval outlined in the use permit. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations is encouraged because it reduces the land area used for oil facilities. Approximately 5.3 acres of developable land will become available after the consolidation on the two blocks (3.1 acres). a. Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City's Zoning Code provides for the establishment of "01" Districts. The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet), as required by Section 9682.1. The proposed drill site for the project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by Section 9682.1. Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -19- (1527d) b. Section 9682.2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements. All City -required dedications will be implemented through the terms of -recorded tract maps for,the"project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. c. The project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites, thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites scattered over 160 acres. Although oil producing facilities will remain on.the project site, the'appeaiance of the project site will be•improved over its present condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. d. With respect to the Land Use Element, policies -have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix. The matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined (i.e. is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium -high density residential categories. • e. A General Plan Amendment is not required because the combined acreage of the proposed site is less than 20 acres as set forth in the Size Criteria for Determining Land Use Designations table contained in the General Plan. 3. Compliance with Title 8 and Title,15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the use permit conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed use allowed by the zone change will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety of the community. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-25:. 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the -vicinity, property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building based on the conditions of approval and compliance with Title'8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code . 2. The proposed oil operation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Oil activities are a consistent use in any land use category of the General Plan. 3. The project will consolidate oil operations in one location reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Springfield Oil Field area. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes. The project will result in the abandonment and reclamation of 31 existing wells and 16 oil storage tanks in the Springfield Oil Field area and will not significantly increase traffic in that area. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -20- (1527d) 4. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 have determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations. 5. Conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 88-18 have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible. 6. The project will result in increased tax revenues for the City of Huntington Beach and other governmental agencies. 7. The conditions of approval are desirable and necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the official General Plan Land Use Plan and the best interests of the City. Further, they include mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact Report that will assure the location is suitable for the type of use proposed and the following will not result or be reasonably anticipated from the project: a. Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration; hazards from explosion, contamination or fire.. b. Hazards occasioned by unusual volumes or character of. - traffic; incompatibility with surrounding development. c. The project complies with all requirements of Division 9 except for the identified reduction of exterior sideyard setback and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 8. The conditions imposed include requirements of plans for the disposition of oil wells and for oil operations on the property involved, and for berms, walls and landscaping to provide maximum feasible screening of equipment and facilities. 9. Changes have been required and incorporated in the project to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project: a. The Division of Oil and Gas enforces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations. b. The mitigation measures incorporated, proposed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will substantially mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -21- (1527d) c. Public agencies other than the City, including the Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be�reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsibility -,.and jurisdiction, including subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, and alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the -greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. 10. The subject location is centrally located within'the ' Springfield Oil Field area; relocating the proposed project to another site is infeasible. 11. No substantial public=purpose would be served by denial of Use Permit No. 88-25 but rather: a. It is important that the United States develop its existing oil reserves in order to meet its energy needs without increasing dependence on foreign oil, and this project will result in incremental recovery of approximately nine (9) million barrels of oil; and b.: The project will consolidate oil operations in one-. location,, reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Oldtown portion of the.City;and c. Such consolidation will.also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes; and. ; d. The project.will be only an interim use of,the surface site involved, and at the termination of_the*project the :site will be.available for -recycling into other uses; and e. The.project will benefit and accrue to the,general welfare of the City and the public for each of the reasons set forth above. f. Approval of this project will reduce the immediate demand for more off -shore drilling facilities. 12. The proposed oil consolidation project will,have-24 hour on -site personnel,. and will be safer than the existing. - non -continuous monitoring of the 31 scattered wells to be abandoned throughout the area. This will reduce the possible attraction of younger persons. 13. The most modern, efficient energy -saving equipment available will be integrated into the design of the project which will mitigate environmental impacts such as fire, noise and air pollutants. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -22- (1527d) 14. The applicant has submitted a property value protection plan which will be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 15. The reduction of the exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) to seven (7) feet is based on the following: a. The reduction of exterior sideyard setback for perimeter wall from ten (10) to seven (7) feet will result in improved design and.utility of the project. b. The design of the perimeter wall will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed perimeter wall with reduced exterior sideyard setbacks will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or setback privacy of surrounding residents. d. Variation in the wall setback is provided through the use of offset landscape pockets, architectural features and building materials. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-25: 1. The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. This use permit shall not become effective until Zone - Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect. 2. All structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and. Gas Standards. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits. 4. Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after the completion..of each phase of the monitoring effect. The monitoring shall include the following: a. Pre -drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced,at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -23- (1527d) b. Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) for -at least six hours on each of three nights'within the five day'period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance by the Department of Community Development. Wherean'exceedance of the ordinance is identified-, noise control• measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring, shal-1 be required: c., Durind -the Dr'illing:Phase. Noise monitoring shall -:occur during a six -hour periodf-betweeri the hours from- 10:00 PM to 7,00 AM at. -least once each -month during the, drilling phase of the project. The noise level data obtained'shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise - Ordinance standard's by the Department of Community Development. Where an exceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures -shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. 5. Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site preparation. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours after the issuance of a grading permit by the Department of Public'Works. 6. During grading and excavation, earthmovirig crews,shoUld'- observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds. In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance'of'the find'is determined. 7. A dust control program shall -be submitted to"the-Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. All street improvements for both tracts shall be constructed after the heavy grading operations have been completed (approximately 4 weeks): a. Final grading, or any other on -site construction shall be prohibited until street improvement-construction'has commenced. b. Prior to any on=site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -24- (1527d) 1 9. Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. a. All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center. 10. Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. a. The office shall be on a permanent foundation. b. A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. 11. The applicant shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks, if required. 12. The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months. 13. The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel and/or asphalt) subject to review and approval of Public Works Department, Fire Department and Department of Community Development. 14. A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by.the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. Said report shall describe noise levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and at the nearest residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs. The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code. This shall include the provisions of the Ordinance Code regarding maximum hourly average noise level at nearest residential property line of 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours between 10:00 PM ;and 7:00 AM. a. A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man -door entrances. 15. Noise attenuation for the drilling operation, oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 14. a. If a noise violation occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -25- (1527d) 16. No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 17. Excessive vibration, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be reduced to acceptable levels. 18. Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto -adjacent residential properties and shall be energy efficient subject to the requirements of the Building Division. 19. All heavy truck traffic shall be .limited to•the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street. For entrance to the site only -Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used.—, . 20. Heavy -truck -traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. a. No trucks may park -on the street. b. Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no stacking shall.occur on public streets. 21. All employees must park on either one of the two sites. Street parking= -for emp.loyees•is prohibited. 22. Local streets•affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local -streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant. 23. All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to public Works standards. 24. There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM except for -emergency purposes. 25. An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for.all oversized loads to be moved on public streets— _ . - > . -1 26. Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent salt water intrusion. -into -the aquifers. 27. A system for collecting, treating, and .releasing storm drainage shall -be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works. 28. Brine water shall not be released into the sewer system. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -26- (1527d) 29. A recycling plan of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be certified by the Department of Oil and Gas and the Fire Department and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 30. Well service rigs shall be operated no more than a total of 48 days per year between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. 31. No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets as deemed necessary. 32. All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 33. The 24-hour phase drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years from the issuance of the first drilling permit. 34. Drilling rigs for remaining wells after the two year period shall comply with the conditions. Subsequent drilling shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM only. 35. Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in overall height. 36. Upon completion of 24 hours phase of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 37. Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations. 38. Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment. 39. A full vapor recovery system shall be installed as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 40. Only three on -site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be completely full at once. 41. Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prior to issuance of building permits. A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as -built plans shall be completed and•, submitted prior to the start of oil production operations. The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from site(s)-would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc.), the safe handling of.any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment. A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis. In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc., not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -27- (1527d) 42. All.oil must be -transported by'pipeline. 43. An.on-site fire'suppression system shall be'installed as a primary source for fire protection pursuant to Fire Department requirements. 44. Celler-requirements for oil wells: " a. A hydrogen sulfide detection system for the well cellers shall be installed subject to Fire Department requirements. b.--Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel on -site. c. Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellars. 45. Storage tank requirements: a. Must'have•pre-plumbed-foam-injection•system=i'ristal,led on all 'product storage tanks. b. Must -have exterior deluge water spray`system"oh all storage tanks: 46. Site requirements: a: All diked areas must have -.an engineered drairiage-system. b.--Foam storage area and fdam'quantitysto ;tie approved. by Fire Department. c. Fire :hydrants .to ;be ' located • in areas• approved �by Fiice --. -Department. d: - Hydrogeny .sulfide detection ;system approved"'by Fife Department �to be installed on -project• perimeter•:•' e. Fire extinguishers approved,by the Fire -Department -must be .installed throughout the site. f. All gate openings' must -,be 24 feet -in-- width -and- installation must comply with -Fire Department---` Specification- 401. 47. Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent, waste accumulation. 48. Twenty-one (21) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which" do not meet present day- abandonment requirements. A contingency plan -shall be outlined 'and submitted to the Huntington -Beach Fire Department for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -28- (1527d) 49. Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Community Development Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. 50. There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 51. The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 52. The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the, amount of not less than $5,000,000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but not limited to) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator's oil drilling and production activities and operations incidental thereto. Said policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier. The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the operator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by,the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance carrier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder,'such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -29- (1527d) 53. The Planning Commission shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, -at the first regular Planning Commission meeting in October, 1989, and at five year intervals thereafter, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall.not include any sale -or other transfer to a corporation,.partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas -United States and/or .one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any, sale or transfer- so long 'a's Angus or.. one.,of its subsidiaries ,retains responsibil'ity for the,operat,ion of the project. 54. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke'this'use permit if.any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. The City shall provide the property owner with notice in,writing of,any violation-,' stating the City's basis for determining that'a�vio`lation has occurred. The property owner shall have a reasonable time to cure the violation before further action is taken. The'City may require the property owner with notice in'writing to submit written,documentation of actions taken to'remedy any violation and may require monitoring or other procedures to be implemented in order to ensure that the violation will be cured. 55. The nine member project review'committee shall monitor -the' " project during the drilling phase and,semi-annuAlly� thereafter. The Fire Department and Community Development departments shall jointly provide a staff, liaison.'-," 56. The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to`drilling.- 57. In .the event that either one of the twoblocks" is to'be` ' ' without 24-hour supervision, a video•camera'shall be employed on -site to provide continuous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. 58. All mitigation measures given in DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 shall be includd as conditions of approval., - 59. Emergency discharge -through the City's storm drain 'shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.' PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -30- (1527d) D. ITEMS NOT PUBLIC HEARING •001ril COISR • . • 0#100C,111211*91 • \ ON ZT91 Z 0 4 - MAF� W-1-0 * 01.1 NZO 4 *�K*161 VISE • k, On September 27, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this item and directed staff to complete further research on the location, amount of bond, requirements for the common horse stable and a response to a letter submitted by the Huntington Beach Company dated September 23, 1988. Continue the per horse bond amount issue with concurrence from the subdivider and include the discussion in the forthcoming revised and updated Draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY SILVA, TO CONTINUE THE PER HORSE BOND AMOUNT ISSUE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY 1989, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 REVIEW SHADOW STUDY FOR WATERFRONT PHASE 1 HOTEL A shadow study for the Phase 1 Hilton Hotel at The Waterfront submitted pursuant to Condition 2.1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-19 which reads as follows: "A shadow study for the proposed tower shall be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission." The study addresses the greatest shadow impact day of the year; December 22. Four diagrams depicting shadow impacts for different times of the day are included. Receive and file the shadow study for the Phase 1 Hilton Hotel at the Waterfront received and dated September 12, 1988. It was felt by some Commissioners that the shortest day of the year was picked to do a shadow study and March, June or September would have been preferred. It was requested that it be acknowledged there would be a shadow on the beach from the project. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -31- (1527d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO RECEIVE•AND FILE THE SHADOW STUDY FOR THE PHASE 1 HILTON HOTEL AT THE WATERFRONT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: - Slates,-Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega ABSENT: -Higgins (Out,of.Room) ABSTAIN: None , MOTION PASSED D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AMENDMENT Option No. 1."of.the-By-Law Amendment -is:. "Infthe event=th6 required aff irmative� vote is : not, cast, the:.matter shall -be , continued to the next regular.meeting or to a date,certain, agreed to by•,a majority of the Commissioners.present. If at the continued -meeting the' -- matter again fails to receive a minimum-four,(4) affirmative votes. either for approval or -denial. the matter will be deemed denied. A MOTION WAS.MADE.BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS;=TO APPROVE'OPTION NO. 1 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AMENDMENT,�BY THE'FOLLOWING VOTE: r . AYES: Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Slates, Silva ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:. None MOTION PASSED - - E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES The following items were added to the Inquiries-1ist:' HEBREW ACADEMY - 14401 WILLOW LANE - WESTMINSTER - Follow"•up on complaints addressed during Oral Communications:' SHOPPING CENTER - ADAMS AND BROOKHURST - Access,gate behind new building -in center unlocked. f� PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -32- (1527d) I 1 G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN LEIPZIG TO ADDRESS A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER SENT FROM THOMAS MARIER (MST FINANCIAL CORPORATION), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None None A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SLATES, AT 11:47 PM, TO ADJOURN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1988, 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MINUTES APPROVED: Mike Adams, Secretary Victor Leipzig, Chairman PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -33- (1527d)