Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-18 (7)APPROVED MARCH 7, 1989 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 1989 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 PM (ASCON GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT) REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega P P Higgins, Leipzig A. CONSENT CALENDAR None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 APPLICANT: ASCON PROPERTIES, INC. General Plan Amendment No. 87-4 is a request to amend the land use designation on the Ascon,site from Public, Quasi -Public, Institutional to General Commercial and Medium High Density Residential designation. The proposal specifies approximately 6.4 acres -of commercial land use at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street surrounded on the west and south by about 33 acres of residentially designated land. The applicant is proposing about 83,000 square feet of commercial use and up to 750 dwelling units on the residentially designated land. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15060 of the_California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 87-5 was prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 87-4. Because the California Coastal Commission is also acting as a responsible agency in this case, the EIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse and posted for a forty-five (45) day public review period from May 5, 1988, through July 11, 1988. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 (39.4 acres of Public, Quasi -Public, Institutional designation to Medium Density Residential) and adopt Resolution 1405. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said the site is in its present condition is a significance nuisance rather than a danger. He reviewed the agreement between Ascon and the City and pointed out that Ascon had satisfied their responsibility. He discussed the process of clean up of the site and introduced representatives from Radian, Protec and LSA. He pointed out the buffer to surrounding areas on an aerial map and explained the conceptual plan for the area. He said time is Ascon's worst enemy and it is imperative they know the land use alternatives. Richard Loy, 9062 Kahului Drive, expressed concern with the proposed use of the site. He feels it will impact traffic in the area. He does not feel there is a need for additional shopping centers in the area because the current ones have vacancies. 1 L PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -2- (1937d) Norma VanderMolen, 9472 Makihana Drive, spoke against medium -high residential density. She feels it will cause additional emissions from the added vehicles and increased crime. She said if the topography is changed it will cause additional runoff during rains. She urged the Commission to approve single family homes. Meg Watson, 21691 Kaneohe Lane, spoke against high residential density. She said toxic waste and people do not mix. She would like to see the site developed for recreation (i.e. golf course). Steven Clark, 9021 Bobbie Circle, spoke against the project. He complained that reports were not available before the meeting. Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, said this site has been an environmental issue since 1970 and it is a known fact that the site contains toxic waste. He feels odors will be present during clean up and is concerned as to where they will haul the toxic materials. He told the story of a dog that fell into one of the pits at the site and lost all of its hair. Chris Alford, 9141 Bermuda Drive, feels 5 units per acre should be the maximum allowed. He is concerned that a high density project will lower the value on his home, especially if they are low-priced units. He said the homeowners prefer a dumpsite to the proposed development. David Jarman, 21761 Bushard, spoke in opposition to the development. He said the environmental impact report does not cover or list the experiences of people living near these sites. John Engh, 9152 Mahalo Drive, asked if the developer had the financial responsibility to clean up the site and follow through on the development since he went bankrupt on the adjacent property. He urged the Commission to consider R1 development. Beverly Titus, 9062 Bobbie Circle, said the zoning should not be based on the financial needs of the developer, if the zoning is not compatible with surrounding properties it should not be allowed. She feels R1 zoning would be a compromise from Public -Quasi Institutional. Henry Bohrman, 21112 Poston Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He does not feel there is any need for more commercial in the area and would like to see more information available before a decision is made. He asked if the proposed units would be rentals or owner -occupied. Kent Loy, 9191 Kapaa Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. He asked for a show of hands from people in the audience that were also against the project (98 percent raised their hands). He urged the Commission to deny the project. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -3- (1937d) Don Schweiger, 9001 Adelia Circle, said he is opposed to the requested development and also to staff's recommendation. John Lindsay, property owner, spoke in support of the project. He said he has been working on this development for over 5 years and was originally told that it only contained liquid petroleum, concrete and wastewater. He said the reason for the proposed increased density is for financial reasons. He feels the clean-up will prevent health hazards for surrounding residents and anticipates completion in five years. Chris Kurner, representing Radian, discussed the waste identified at the site and the drainage problems. Mike Hanes, South Coast Air Management District, said he has reviewed along with the Department of Health Services the completed studies on the site and feels the clean up will guarantee "no air emissions". Betty Parkovich, property owner adjacent to the site, spoke in opposition to the project. She is concerned with future emissions from the site and asked where Ascon would be then and what the City's responsibility would be if this occurred. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Comments were made by the Commissioners. Concerns included clean up of the site, traffic, future responsibility if more emissions occur, impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, restricting commercial development, source of funds for development, and protection of health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents. The proposed density was discussed at length. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 (20 ACRES LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 20 ACRES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, NO COMMERCIAL), CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1405 AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, NOES: Kirkland, ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None Ortega, Higgins Williams, Bourguignon TIE VOTE - MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE 87-4 (13 UNITS PER ACRE, NO COMMERCIAL), ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 AND AS AMENDED. THERE WAS NO SECOND - MOTION DIED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1405 PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -4- (1937d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1405 AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Higgins, Leipzig ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None TIE VOTE - MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Leipzig, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 AND RESOLUTION 1405 BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO REACH A CONCENSUS REGARDING DENSITY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, NOES: Williams ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon C-2 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-07/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-16/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13269 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: THE DAHL COMPANY Zone Change No. 88-07 is a request to rezone a 4.55 gross acre site from RA-O-CD (Residential Agriculture District, Combined with Oil Production, Civic District) to (Q)R1(3)-0-8,000-CD (Qualified Low Density Residential District-3 units per acre -Combined with Oil Production -Minimum 8,000 Square Foot Lot Size -Civic District) which is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Estate Residential-3 Units Per Acre. Conditional Use Permit No. request to permit a 12 lot Estate Residential single 88-16 and Tentative Tract No. 13269 is a subdivision for the construction of 12 family dwellings. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -5- (1937d) At the September 20, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that a comprehensive environmental impact report and specific plan be prepared and adopted for the Ellis/Goldenwest quarter -section prior to acting on any subdivision request. At that meeting, the Planning Commission denied Negative Declaration No. 88-16 and directed the applicant to prepare an environmental impact report. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An environmental impact report is being prepared for the entire quarter section and will address significant environmental concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Zone Change No. 88-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 88-16 and Tentative Tract No. 13269 to the March 21, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED David Dahl, appicant, stated his willingness to pay for the environmental impact report however it was suppose to be already completed. He expressed his desires to continue development of the area and stated his objection to processing the specific plan and the environmental impact report in conjunction with his development. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-16, AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13269 TO THE MARCH 21, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH RE -ADVERTISEMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-30 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: FHP, INC. This request for expanded hours and membership at the FHP Senior Center was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of November 15, 1988, December 6, 1988, and January 4, 1989, while the applicant attempted to address the Planning Commission's and staff's concerns with regard to parking problems at the existing facility. h 1 PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -6- (1937d) 1 At this time, FHP is requesting withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-30, and will maintain their originally approved hours of Monday through Saturday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and their existing enrollment of 10,000 members. As required by the original entitlement for the facility (Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5), FHP will also undertake an updated parking study and attempt to alleviate the existing overcrowding in the parking lot that occurs during peak hours. The parking study is expected to be completed within 30 to 60 days, and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review, in accordance with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept FHP's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-30. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-30, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Higgins, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 88-3/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-2 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The City Council adopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 on June 4, 1984, establishing the general alignment of Walnut Avenue between Lake and Sixth Streets. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 86-1, establishing the precise alignment of Walnut Avenue, was adopted October 27, 1986. This precise alignment reflects 80 foot ultimate right-of-way requring a 10 foot dedication on each side of Walnut Avenue being required at the time adjacent properties are redeveloped. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 88-3 proposes to create a modified right-of-way width of 60 feet with up to 80 feet in some areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Declaration No. 89-2 and and recommend adoption by Planning Commission approve Negative Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 88-3 the City Council. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -7- (1937d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Guy Gazzardo, 515 Walnut -Avenue, -pointed out the historic sites on Walnut Avenue. -He said if the street is widened the sites cannot be retained. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt any change to the precise plan of street alignment would not be in the best interest to the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO REAFFIRM PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 ESTABLISHED AND -ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 27, 1986, BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 13527(R)/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-18(R)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-24(R) APPLICANT: WALDEN & ASSOCIATES Tentative Tract No. 13527(R), Conditional Use Permit No. 88-18(R) and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-24(R) is a request to revise the previously approved 164 single family residential lot subdivision by reducing the project boundaries and subdivision layout to 158 single family residential lots on a 27.7 acre site. The 158 lot subdivision is submitted pursuant to Article 99 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under previously approved Negative Declaration No. 88-18. COASTAL STATUS: Approximately 7 acres of the project area is in the non -appealable area of the coastal zone. The original project is covered by previously approved Coastal Development Permit No. 88-24 which found Tentative Tract Map No. 13527 to be in conformance with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 13527(R), Conditional Use Permit No. 88-18(R) and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-24(R) with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -8- 1 (1937d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Glenn Cardoso, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins said he would be abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13527(R), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-18(R) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-24(R), WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 13527(R): 1. The proposed 158 lot single family subdivision is proposed to be constructed having 5.7 units per net acre. 2. The proposed 158 lot single family subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the Seacliff Specific Plan No. 1. 3. The General Plan is set up for the provision of this type of development. 4. The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. 5. The tentative tract is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-24(R): 1. The revised subdivision layout conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 88-24(R) for the revised subdivision is consistent with the CZ suffix. 3. At the time of occupancy, the revised subdivision can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -9- (19137d) 4. The revised"subdivision-.conforms with the public access and public recreation -policies of Chapter 3-of the California Coastal •Act . '_ - -- 5. The Mello Bill Affordable Housing,Requirement, Government Code Section 65590(d); is -satisfied in the following manner: a. The:City.has provided density bonuses within three miles of -the coastal zone which have provided affordable housing; b.:_. Due. -to the location and economics involved it would not be feasible to develop affordable housing on this site. The value of the land coupled with the housing type proposed would prohibit the ability to provide for affordable housing. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-18(R): 1. The revised single. --family subdivision will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the vicinity; or will not be detrimental to,the value.of the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The revised single family subdivision is compatible with existing or proposed uses in the vicinity. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use is properly related to the streets, drives and other structures and uses in the vicinity in a harmonious manner. 4. The revised subdivision is in conformance with the Seacliff Specific Plan -No. 1. 5. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed single family•subdivision shall -enhance the orderly and harmonious development -of the Seacliff Specific Plan area. 6. The proposed single family subdivision is -consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.- TENTATIVE TRACT 13527(R): 1. Tentative Tract 13527(R) dated January 11, 1989, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The access road to the retention basin shall include a fire lane for emergency purposes connecting Woodlands Drive to Seapointe, subject -to Fire and Public Works Departments approval- 2. Seapoint Avenue shall be constructed to its full right-of-way adjacent to the tract. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -10- (1937d) I 3. Seapointe Avenue shall be connected to Garfield Avenue and shall be open to the public prior to occupancy of the first unit. Design and width of the connection shall be subject to review and approval by Public Works, Fire and Community Development Departments and final approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Hydrology and hydraulic calculations shall be conducted per the latest Orange County EMA Hydrology Manual and approved by the Public Works Department. 5. The existing retention basin and appurtenances shall be analyzed for adequacy using all tributary runoff. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading permits or approval of hydrology, the existing problems with the retention basin system (i.e. percolation versus discharge) shall be resolved with all affected agencies. 7. Sewer capacity calculations shall be conducted for the unoccupied areas of this tract and Seacliff IV and analyzed with flow meter data upstream and downstream of the private sewer lift station. The capacity of the lift station shall also be analyzed. These capacities shall be used to determine the extent of any necessary upgrading by the applicant of the present system prior to issuance of final inspection. 8. All sewer and drainage facilities shall be privately maintained. 9. The entrance street/security gate configuration shall be approved by Public Works Department. 10. A 36 inch box tree is required per lot and a second 36 inch box trees per corner lot provided adequate space is available. 11. A grading plan and soils report shall be submitted for Public Works approval. 12. Water mains shall be looped from Woodlands to Seapointe and from Woodlands to Morningside Street. 13. Each dwelling unit shall have individual water meters. Also, the irrigation system shall be separately metered. 14. Backflow devices shall be installed on all domestic pool, fire and irrigation services. 15. All required street improvements including the street lighting system, shall be approved by the City and shall be installed on all adjacent streets and alleys. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -11- (1537d) 16. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (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 Tract Map 13527(R). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-18(R): 1. The site plan received and dated January 9, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved -plans, with the following modification. a. The access road to the retention basin shall include a fire lane for emergency purposes connecting Woodlands Drive to Seapointe, subject to Fire and Public Works Department approval. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following shall be submitted and/or completed: a. The.applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Community Development Department and Public Works for review and approval. Any existing mature trees on site shall be retained and incorporated into the site plan if feasible. Any existing mature tree that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with 36" box trees which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. b. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. c. Final Tract Map No. 13527(R) shall be accepted by the City Council. It shall be -recorded with the County Recorder's office prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy issuance. d. A listing of proposed private street names for review and approval to the Fire Department and three site plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. e. Gated entryway -plans to.the Department of Community Development, Fire and Public Works. A "statement of architecture" should be incorporated to highlight the theme of the development. Said gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard 403. f. The floor plans shall reflect outlets for natural gas and 220V electrical at the location of clothes dryers, natural gas outlets at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units, and low volume heads shall be used'on all showers. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -12- (1937d) g. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. h. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. i. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan shall be submitted to the City's Department of Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. 4. Fire Department requirements are as follows: a. Fire hydrants (a minimum of 10) are to be installed pursuant to Fire Department and Public Works standards. The fire hydrants must be installed prior to combustible construction. Fire flow provided must be a minimum 4,500 gpm. b. All existing or former oil well sites must be abandoned pursuant to Division of Oil and Gas and Fire Department standards. C. Building address numbers are to be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. d. Any security gates which are locked must be provided with a "knox key box" for emergency access key. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -13- (1937d) e. During construction, the construction site must comply with Article 87 of the Fire Code. Additionally, when the subdivision has reached 50 percent built stage, a 24-hour fire watch, approved by the Fire Department, must be provided for the abatement of fire hazards and for reporting code violations, suspicious persons and fires to the Fire Department. The number and length of minimum one inch diameter hoses shall be approved by the Fire Department and must be provided on site for use on small incipient fires. 5. The method of trash pick up shall be subject to the approval of Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. Prir to establishment of an on -site model complex and/or sales office, the developer shall receive approval from the Zoning Administrator. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 88-18 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 9. This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 10. Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 88-18 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to'the expiration date. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-35/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-51 APPLICANT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35 in conjunction with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-51 is a request to construct a 2,700 square foot Arco AM -PM Mini Market with the off -site sale of beer and wine pursuant to Section 9220.14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-51 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -14- (1937d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-51 to the February 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with concurrence by the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-35 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-51 TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIG, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Leipzig (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-15/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-49 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 88-15 is a request by the Planning staff to revise Article 977 pertaining to front yard fencing heights. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 88-49 and Code Amendment No. 88-15 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. Since there were still questions regarding the definition of existing grade and building height a continuance was suggested. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-15 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-49 TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -15- (1937d) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 MEMO DATED DECEMBER 22 1988, FROM COMMISSIONER SLATES (SUBJECT: SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING DIRECTION TO STAFF) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE POLICY REGARDING DIRECTION TO STAFF AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER SLATES IN MEMO DATED DECEMBER 22, 1988, BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Higgins, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO ADJOURN TO A 6:00 PM STUDY SESSION, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 (ZONE CHANGE- WHITE HOLE AREA) AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, FEBRUARY 7, 1989, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Higgins, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -16- (1937d) 1-1 APPROVED BY: Mike Adams, Secretary P anning Co fission C a'rma PC Minutes - 1/18/89 -17- (1937d)