Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-05APPROVED 1/23/90 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1989 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, P P Mountford, Leipzig A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1989 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1989, AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Leipzig (absent from November 7 meeting) MOTION PASSED GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-11 WAS TABLED SO THAT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COULD BE TAKEN PRIOR TO THE ITEM. A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO 89-11 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 21, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) - Applicant: Department of Administrative Services - Accept the conveyance of property formerly used as the Orange County Transfer Station from the County to the City for park purposes. After hearing comments from staff and members of the public (see names under Oral Communications), a discussion ensued regarding tabling or denying the item until the ultimate use for the proposed property is determined. Without assurance that the property would not be traded until the ultimate use was determined a motion to deny was agreed upon by the maker and second of the motion. B. B-1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-11, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, NOES: Shomaker, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig Kirkland, Mountford 1. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, uses in an M1-CD (Light industrial) district are not compatible with the kind of uses proposed. The proposed uses in the request are not listed in the code description for the Industrial District. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Debbie Cook, 6692 Shetland Circle, spoke in opposition to the conveyance of property from the County to the City. She said it is a three-way swap of property and there are no guarantees what the property will be used for. She objects to the suggested uses for the property because she does not feel it is compatible with Central Park. She urged the Commission to deny or table the request. Carrie Thomas, 6642 Trotter Drive, asked for the status of the park that was approved in the Ellis-Goldenwest area. She said she has spoken to Mayor Bannister and he had not seen the Minute Action sent to him from the Planning Commission regarding the park. She also said that 100% of all property owners in her tract favored a gated community and asked what the next step was in the process to get the gating completed. PLANNING COMMISSION SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS None 1 PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -2- (4416d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 DRAFT 1989 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 3, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: City-wide California State Law requires that local governments prepare and adopt a Housing Element of the General Plan, and that the element be updated at five-year intervals. The City retained the firm of Cotton/Beland to prepare the Housing Element Update. The document has been completed and comments from the public and the State have been received. At present, staff and the consultant continue to work with the State to finalize revisions to the Draft Housing Element. Discussions center on available City land for future housing developments. Final comments from the State are anticipated at the beginning of January 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the public hearing scheduled for January 23, 1990. This continuance would allow staff and the consultant time to complete discussions with the State and return an amended document to the Commission for their review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE DRAFT 1989 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TO THE JANUARY 23, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-8 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 7, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: City-wide At the November 21, 1989 Study Session, the Commission discussed revisions to Article 960 - Parking and Landscaping. The Planning Commission directed staff to return on December 5, 1989, and discuss PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -3- (4416d) the staff recommendation in areas of disagreement with the Commission. Staff presented illustrations to depict how the specific dimensions in the Code relate to the practical application in the field. This item was continued to December 19, 1989, to allow completion of the discussion of areas of disagreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-8 and Code Amendment No. 88-12, as modified, with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. After comments made during study session, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to December 19, 1989. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-12 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-8 TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-39/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-58 APPLICANT: TEXACO REFINING & MARKETING, INC. LOCATION: 6962 Edinger Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 89-39 is a request to remodel an existing Texaco station by converting the existing lube bay building into an approximately 1,071 square foot convenience store. The convenience store will offer beer and wine sales. A conditional use permit is required pursuant to Sections 9220.14(g) and 9636 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-58 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Section 9220.14(f)(5), which specifies that a 10 foot wide landscape buffer is required along street frontages, except at vehicular openings. The applicant is requesting that an existing 4 foot-6 inch wide planter be allowed to remain and a new 4 foot wide planter be allowed along Edinger Avenue in order to maintain adequate vehicular circulation on -site. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -4- (4416d) 1 I " ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-39 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-58 as modified, with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Floyd J. Shadwick, 6832 Edinger Avenue, tenant in the Home Depot Shopping Center, raised questions as to the non -conforming size of the lot and the location of driveways and drive aisles on the adjacent Home Depot parking lot. Texaco requested a continuance of this item. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commission suggested a continuance so staff could address the access concerns on the Home Depot site to the west and evaluate possible impacts on the Texaco site and review the parking lot improvement plans submitted by Home Depot. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-39 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-58 TO THE JANUARY 9, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-56 APPLICANT: HENRY MINH TRAN LOCATION: 21501 Brookhurst Street #E Conditional Use Permit No. 89-56 is sales at an existing 900 square foot the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code approval by the Planning Commission restaurant which is within 300 feet a request for beer and wine restaurant. Section 9636.1 of requires conditional use permit for alcohol sales at a of a residence. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 mis (4416d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-56 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Henry Minh Tran, applicant, spoke in support of the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-56 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption at the existing restaurant will not create an undue traffic problem. All parking requirements are met. 2. The proposed sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption at the existing restaurant is compatible with the existing uses in the area. 3. The proposed sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption at the existing restaurant will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons working or residing in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption at the existing restaurant will not be detrimental to the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. LJ PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -6- (4416d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated October 11, 1989, and floor plan dated November 14, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The operating hours shall be Monday through Friday from 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Saturday from 11:00 AM to 9:00 PM, and Sunday from 3:00 PM to 8:30 PM. 3. The applicant shall obtain a license to sell alcoholic beverages from Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages. License shall be restricted to on -site consumption only. 4. There shall be no tables placed outside of the store. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-56 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO 88-18 (REFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Zone Change No. 88-18 is a request to to apply appropriate zoning designations to the properties in the coastal zone in order to achieve consistency with the Land Use designations and to complete certification of the Local Coastal Program. On June 2, 1986, the City Council adopted a Land Use Plan for the non -certified coastal zone area along Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. On April 13, 1987 the California Coastal Commission certified the Land Use Plan as submitted by the City. The Land Use Plan, as certified, designates approximately 7.0 acres as Visitor Serving Commercial, 125 acres as Conservation, 83 acres as Industrial Energy Production and 17.0 acres as Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. On February 7, 1989, the Planning Commission held a study session on Zone Change No. 88-18. At that study session, the City Attorney advised the Commission that the zone change may deny the subject landowners a viable economic use of their property and that the City may be found liable for a taking. Based on that information, the Commission directed staff to prepare a request for withdrawal of the zone change application for action on February 22, 1989. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -7- (4416d) The Commission further directed staff to prepare an analysis of alternative land uses for the property. Those land uses could then be incorporated into a future Local Coastal Plan for the area. Staff informed the Commission, however, that current levels of staffing will not allow a new "whitehole study" to be addressed as a top priority item. Rather, it may be necessary to wait for the landowners to file an application for land use amendment. Staff could then retain a consultant to prepare the analysis. At the February 22, 1989 meeting the Planning Commission took formal action to withdraw the zone change. Subsequently, this action was appealed to and heard by Council on March 20, 1989. At that meeting the issue was continued so that an outside legal opinion could be obtained regarding the City's exposure for a taking. The outside legal opinion was discussed by the City Council at their October 16, 1989 meeting. This opinion addresses the legal question: Does zoning property as Coastal Conservation within the coastal zone constitute a cause of action for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Four additional recommendations were also included: 1. To reduce potential exposure to liability, the City should consider implementing zoning consistent with the General Plan. 2. An administrative review procedure should be incorporated into the Coastal Conservation zone to allow applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands. 3. The City should also consider adopting a "Transfer of Development Rights" ("TDR")•program which would permit the transfer of development rights from certain "sending zone" properties (such as functioning and restorable wetlands) to other properties in the jurisdiction (such as nearby unrestorable wetlands or upland properties). 4. Other planning concepts, such as a specific plan, may also be appropriate for the subject properties. Subsequently, the City Council made three recommendations. These were: (1) Refer Zone Change No. 88-18 back to the Planning Commission for action and zoning recommendations consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan of the area. 1 PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -8- (4416d) (2) Authorize the formation of a wetlands coalition consisting of property owners, responsible agencies, the City, conservation, and interest group representatives to study alternative land uses for the area. (3) Direct staff to work with the coalition to prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer Development Right's Programs. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Zone Change No. 88-18 is classified exempt. Section 15265 states that CEQA does not apply to approvals by any local government pursuant to the preparation of a local coastal program. Rather, the burden of CEQA compliance is shifted to the California Coastal Commission for the certification of local coastal programs. COASTAL STATUS• Zone Change No. 88-18 is a part of the local coastal program for the previously non -certified area of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. After City Council approval, Zone Change No. 88-18 must be certified by the California Coastal Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Zone Change No. 88-18 as modified to retain existing zoning and add the CC suffix on the subject property, with findings and forward to City Council for adoption. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert London Moore, Mills Land and Water, property owner for 23 acres of the proposed property. He said his company has been paying taxes for 89 years and to date there has been no definitive indication to any viable, economic uses that will be permitted on this property. In July of 1989 they applied through Administrative Review No. 89-14 for a Light Industrial Office project which would have conformed to the existing zoning. The City refused to process because it was not compatible with the land use designation. He feels they are being held hostage by this delay. Mills property has been depicted wetlands by the Fish and Game Department however it is not any different from any other property in the area. He further said that Mills Land and Water does not want to destroy the wetlands or the environment, they only want to be treated fairly and will insist on their right to be fully and fairly compensated if not allowed to develop their property. He also said that compensation should be based on per acre prices established by the City. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -9- (4416d) William Curtis, President Tidal Energy, said Zone Change No. 88-18 was withdrawn in February but because the City Council wanted a second opinion which was paid for by the City the land use designation has not yet been determined. He said he feels the legal opinion received by the City was very convuluted and hard to interpret. His company also hired an attorney, Michael Mansfield, for an opinion on the "taking of property". He felt it a very positive move when the City Council formed a coalition which included the property owners, however since they were only allowed to make decisions regarding the property if it was consistent with the certified land use designation which left the coalition nothing to discuss. He requested a continuance on the zone change until such time that the coaliton could meet a couple of more times, or withdrawal of the zone change. He then read the opinion paid for by his company to the Commission and made copies available to any interested parties. Gary Gorman, Director of Wetlands Conservancy and property owner in the wetlands, said this zone change should not be delayed. He supported staffs recommendation. Charles Gant, President of Friends of the Wetlands, spoke in support of conservation of the wetlands. He said all of the lawyers have agreed on the facts in the case and the wetlands should be preserved. He feels they are a diminishing resource which will add to the beauty of Huntington Beach. He said they provide a habitat for the wildlife and new species of fish, etc. He feels the wetlands will be a nice area for the community and will provide income to the City during the visitor season. He supports staff recommendation. Clint L'Ecluse, citizen of Huntington Beach, said a growth is coming upon us that is overwhelming and feels that our valuable lands should be preserved; we should save what we can. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. In order to achieve consistency within the General Plan and Ordinance Code, the Coastal Commission's recommendations for a Certified Local Coastal Program for the subject area, and the interests of several parties, the Commission supported staff's recommendation to add a CC suffix on the property. Chairman Bourguignon stated he would be abstaining from the vote. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -10- (4416d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY.MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18 AS MODIFIED WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bourguignon MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) is consistent with the General Plan designations adopted by Council and the Coastal Commission because it recognizes the goals of the Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) is compatible with surrounding General Plan designations of Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. 3. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding uses because it is designed to protect the identified wetlands. 4. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Commission and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and reconciles the inconsistency between the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan (Zoning Ordinance). D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO START THE STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1989, AT 4:30 PM INSTEAD OF 5:30 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -11- (4416d) F. G. H. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES The following items were added to the inquiries list: 1. Flooding at Palm and Seventeenth Street. 2. Status of Minute Action from Planning Commission to City Council regarding park in Ellis-Goldenwest area. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO AGENDIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS REGARDING THE REQUIRED VOTE TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMISSION BUSINESS AFTER 11:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Leipzig suggested that instead of a Nominating Committee and the usual voting procedure to fill the position of Planning Commission Chairman that the job be filled by seniority and requested an informal vote be taken on the suggestion. A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR CHOOSING A CHAIRMAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Mountford ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bourguignon MOTION FAILED Commission Bourguignon announced there would be a Nominating Committee meeting at 12:30 PM, Wednesday, December 13, 1989. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams reiterated action taken by the City Council at their December 4, 1989 meeting. PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -12- (4416d) I. A MOTION WAS MADE AT 9:25 PM BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO ADJOURN TO A 4:30 PM STUDY SESSION, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1989, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kla APPROVE BY fG � Mike A ams, Secretary Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, ;eanningg Kommissi n Cha man PC Minutes - 12/5/89 -13- (4416d)