Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-05APPROVED 8/7/90 7 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, W A Bourguignon, Leipzig A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. John Fisher, 6692 Shetland, Country View Homeowners Association, requested that the Ellis/Goldenwest Subcommittee be reconvened to discuss the following: 1) park in. quartersection; 2) sidewalks/equestrian trails; 3) new developments using private streets; 4) codification of turning public streets into private streets; 5) financial sacrifices made by Country View homeowners; 6) forming of a master association for maintenance, etc. Gerald Chapman, 6742 Shir Circle, Country View Homeowners Association, requested a review of the ordinance allowing model homes in new developments without noticing adjacent property owners. 4 i B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-3/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-1 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 1, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: ROGER MILLER HONDA LOCATION: 19232 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 0.2 miles south of Garfield Avenue) The Planning Commission continued this item from the May 1, 1990 meeting at the applicant's request. No new information has been submitted. The staff reports dated April 3, 1990, and May 1, 1990, outline the applicant's proposal along with staff's analysis and recommended modifications. No further violations of the Huntington Beach Sign Code have been noted within the last 30 days. In a letter dated May 31, 1990, the applicant requested another continuance to the July 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Williams said he met with Mr. Miller and was told that Honda's request would be amended to conform with all City codes and would be presented at the July 3, 1990 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-3 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-1 TO THE JULY 10, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, B-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-2 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide Code Amendment No. 90-2 was originally initiated at the request of the City Council to analyze how the City regulates the height of hedges in setback areas. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -2- (6104d) hl� After reviewing a number of alternatives the City Council decided to remove any reference to hedges in Section 9771 of the Zoning Code. The practical effect of their amendment will be to eliminate the City's role in enforcing hedge heights in yards on residential property. In proposing this code amendment, staff consulted with the Fire Department, Public Works Department and Southern California Edison Company. The Fire Department does not have concerns with hedge heights but plants must be kept trimmed to allow access through the side yards from the front yard. Also, all plant material needs to be kept from growing into overhead utility lines. This code amendment provides for more flexibility within the regulations governing hedges used for privacy. Throughout the City there are many areas where hedges exceeding the current six (6) foot height limit exist in harmony with surrounding properties. Under this code amendment the height of these existing hedges would not be regulated by City codes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-2 and Code Amendment No. 90-2 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerri Hesprich, 6971 Garden Circle, spoke in opposition to including hedges in the code amendment since it would affect 50 percent of property owners in the City. She said trees in parks would have to be cut down, pollution will increase, and the right of privacy would be denied to property owners. She feels the planting of trees should be encouraged to improve the future of the City. She urged the Commission to drop "hedges" from the code. Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, said he feels that trees help mitigate noise problems since they can be used as sound barriers and urged the Commission to consider the benefits. Edward Leiber, 6981 Garden Circle, spoke in support of striking "hedges" from the code. He feels it will eliminate the City's responsibility of disputing neighbor problems which he thinks should be handled by the courts. He also feels that if there is a safety problem that the City could then handle the issue. Tom McCown, 6972 Church Circle, said he does not feel property owners have the right to plant hedges or trees that create 30 foot walls around their property. He said his rights must be protected also. His neighbor's wall of hedges blocks his views, his ocean breezes, etc. and to allow it to happen is not in the best interest of the City. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -3- ��r (6104d) Ernest Bartola, 6142 Jasonwood Drive, thanked the Commission for declaring "hedges" a nuisance. He said a consistent row of hedges is not beauty, it is a man -created wall. He urged the Commission to leave the word "hedges" in the code in order to consider all property owners. He said he would hate to see the City walled in. Eileen Ann Druiff, 6961 Church Circle, said she feels hedges should be regulated. She said people pay for ocean and golf views and they should be protected. She feels the reason for this controversy is a result of two isolated property owners fighting over hedges. The one property owner wants to build a wall because of a swimming pool and cannot because of his neighbor's hedges. She feels in this case the wall is more important since it would be a safety precaution that would prevent someone drowning in the pool. She feels human lives should be valued more than vegetation. William Byrne, 6692 Gate Hill Circle, said he lives near a golf course and the CC&Rs in his area says hedges can only be 3 feet. He feels there should be limitations placed on hedges. Jim Berry, Arborist/Pruner, stated his beliefs in the preservation of trees. He said trees have value; they cut down on pollution and every City needs them. He said if Cypress trees are cut down 50 percent of them will die and that if pruned the root size increases and cause damage to the trees. He feels enforcement will be a major problem for the City. Glen Hesprich, 6971 Garden Circle, said his cypress trees do not block ocean views because his neighborhood is not close to the beach. He said buildings block his views and the only thing his trees block is arterial highway traffic noise. He said he is willing to maintain the fence between his house and his neighbors. Bill Gottlieb, 19301 Manor Pt. Circle, said his home is bordered by seven other lots and his neighbors are constantly looking down at him from their balconies and patios which deprives him of his privacy. He said he has trees in his rear yard that are over 30 feet in height and would hate to have to remove them because of the financial loss. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE CODE AMENDMENT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A discussion ensued among the Commission. They agreed that the change in the code would not precipitate trees being cut down in all of the City parks. They felt that the City should regulate the height of trees and hedges with variance approval through the Zoning Administrator. Reaffirmation of their February 6, 1990 recommendation to the City Council was suggested with direction to staff to bring back a revised hedge definition and a recommendation to the City Council on a reduced fee for the processing of use permits for hedges that deviate from the maximum height requirements. A fee of $25.00 was suggested. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -4- (6104d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO DENY CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 AS PRESENTED TO DELETE HEDGES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO REAFFIRM FEBRUARY 1990 APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 TO LEAVE IN "HEDGES", WITH FINDINGS, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING BACK A REVISED HEDGE DEFINITION AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REDUCED FEE FOR THE PROCESSING OF USE PERMITS FOR HEDGES THAT DEVIATE FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, 1. Code Amendment No. 90-2 will ensure that hedges over 6 feet in height in the rear and sideyard setbacks will allow neighboring properties to have adequate access to light and ventilation. 2. Code Amendment No. 90-2 will ensure that hedges over 6 feet in height in the rear and sideyard setbacks will be compatible and harmonious with surrounding land uses. 3. Code Amendment No. 90-2 will be consistent in all zones and is consistent with the General Plan in that through the Use Permit Process needed solar access may be maintained. 4. Code Amendment No. 90-2 provides for regulated flexibility within the Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -5- (6104d) B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-15/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-22 APPLICANT: DOT DATSUN, INC. LOCATION: 18801 Beach Boulevard Conditional Use Permit No. 90-15 is a request to convert an existing used car sales lot into a new car dealership with a rear yard setback abutting a residential zone that is less than the required 10 feet pursuant to Section 9220.7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-22 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Section 9220.7(a). The applicant proposes to retain the existing 21 foot high service building which is located 5 feet from the rear property line abutting the residential district. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-15 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-22 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Califf, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He questioned Condition No. 3.d regarding reciprocal access between sites. He said if the requirement necessitated compliance it would take away his right to close access in the future. Staff explained that the requirement for reciprocal access is in keeping with the "Super Street" goals and policies and would be required on all Beach Boulevard projects. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams said he feels there should be consideration given to businesses on Beach Boulevard because of the proposed "Super Street" and that requirements for more on -site parking should be imposed, especially for employee parking. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -6- (6104d) I A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-15 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-22 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed new car dealership properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on the site are properly integrated. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed new car dealership does not create an undue traffic problem. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-15 for a new car dealership will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 90-22: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district because the subject building was constructed prior to the establishment of the retirement residence, and its removal would create an unnecessary economic hardship. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-22 will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming land, property, or improvements in the neighborhood because there will be no change in the use of the property. 3. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9220.7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to prevent unnecessary visual intrusion into the privacy of residential zones. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 IN: (6104d) 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-22 for encroachment of a building exceeding 18 feet in height within 45 feet of a residential zone will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated March 30, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. b. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials as submitted in the color and material palette reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on April 26, 1990. c. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. d. Outdoor lighting shall be high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. 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), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -8- (6104d) c. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. d. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. e. A planned sign program shall be submitted and approved for all signing. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign request. 4. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. New driveway on Beach Boulevard shall have a minimum width of thirty feet (30'). b. Water service to property to be reviewed by Public Works and upgraded if necessary. 5. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. Fire lanes shall be drive thru per Fire Department Standard #401 and shall be posted and marked. C. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. d. On -site fire hydrant shall be provided at location specified by the Fire Department. e. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. 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. 8. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -9- (6104d) 9. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-15 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 11. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-15 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. B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-62 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14134/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 APPLICANT: SURFCREST PARTNERS LOCATION: Southwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-62 with Special Permits and Tentative Tract No. 14134 is a request to construct 115 three-story townhomes in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) relief from one-third of the units less than three-story; 2) reduction of access width; 3) relief from 4-foot offset; 4) relief from 20-foot setback from drive aisle; 5) 28 feet in lieu of 30 feet rear to rear setback; 6) security fence within front setback area, pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On November 16, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would address all environmental concerns regarding this project. Four supplemental reports were required: 1) traffic; 2) archaeological; 3) soils and geology; 4) noise study. As the supplemental reports were submitted to staff, each concern was mitigated to a level of insignificance (see Attachment 7). The requirements of the report and attendant mitigation measures have been incorporated into conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -10- (6104d) 1 Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 89-52 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-62 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract No. 14134 or Coastal Development Permit No. 89-39, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 89-52. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries and specifically within the appealable jurisdiction, and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-62 with Special Permits and Tentative Tract No. 14134, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review Coastal Development Permit No. 89-39. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: On March 22, 1990, the Subdivision Committee reviewed Tentative Tract No. 14134. After staff discussion regarding the general character of the project and lengthy discussion of suggested conditions of approval, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval to the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 89-52; B. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-39 with findings; C. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-62 with Special Permits and Tentative Tract No. 14134 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Zanic, representing Surfcrest Partners, spoke in support of the project. He said approval on both entitlements (Items B-4 and B-5) was needed in order to move ahead on development. He compared both projects in terms of density, etc. He said Surfcrest Partners can comply with most conditions of approval on both projects however discussed concerns with several of the requirements and requested clarification and modification to the conditions. Kelly Gifford, 19301 Archfield Circle, said he owns property on Palm and his ocean views will be lost due to the height of this project. He addressed his concerns with the added traffic and noise with the proposed project. He also said that the proposed section of land is under study for soil conditions and feels this should be considered. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -11- (6104d) Lorraine Faber, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, stated her concerns with discussing the two projects separately. She expressed her support with the recycled water main being directed away from the linear park however urged implementation of the park as promised with the dedication. She is concerned that dedications will come up short if not resolved. S. F. Allcorn, 19275 Torreypines, said height variations is his main concern with the project. He said he paid a high premium for his lot at Seapoint and is concerned with his views being blocked. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission agreed that they could not vote on one request without consideration of the other. They felt, as a whole, that the proposed projects were very attractive and commended the applicant. The Commission's concerns included: subsidence, architectural design, affordable housing, Seapoint extension, traffic, noise, views. A continuance was suggested so that the applicant's concerns and the adjacent homeowners concerns could be resolved. Commissioner Bourguignon said he could not vote on one project without consideration of the other. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-62 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14134, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-39 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 TO THE JULY 10, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: Bourguignon MOTION PASSED B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 89-64 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 89-55/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89-40/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 APPLICANT: SURFCREST PARTNERS LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-64 with Special Permits Tract No. 14135 is a request to construct 6 five -story consisting of 216 stacked condominiums in the Coastal special permits for: 1) reduction of rear and sideyard 2) reduction of access width; 3) permit security fence setback area. and Tentative buildings Zone with setback; within front PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -12- (6104d) Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-55 is a request to permit 52.5 feet in lieu of 35 feet maximum height pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On November 16, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would address all environmental concerns regarding this project. Four supplemental reports were required: 1) traffic; 2) archaeological; 3) soils and geology; 4) noise study. As the supplemental reports were submitted to staff, each concern was mitigated to a level of insignificance. The requirements of the report and attendant mitigation measures have been incorporated into conditions of approval. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 89-52 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-64 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-55 or Coastal Development Permit No. 89-40, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 89-52. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries and specifically within the appealable jurisdiction and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-64 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135, and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-55 it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review Coastal Development Permit No. 89-40. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-39 may be approved or conditionally approved only after it has been found to be in conformance with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: On March 22, 1990, the Subdivision Committee reviewed Tentative Tract No. 14134. After staff discussion regarding the general character of the project and lengthy discussion of suggested conditions of approval, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval to the Planning Commission by a 5 to 0 vote with one abstention. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 89-40, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-64 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135, and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-55 with findings. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -13- (6104d) 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Zanic, Surfcrest Partners, gave a brief overview of the proposed project, reiterated the approach taken on development, and requested a continuance of the item. Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, spoke in support of staff's recommendation for denial of the project. She feels the bulk of the proposed buildings are not compatible with the linear park. She feels the project needs a focused environmental impact report. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-64 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-55, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-40 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 TO THE JULY 10, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO 90-4 APPLICANT: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES General Plan Conformance No. 90-4 is a request to review proposed FY 1990/91 Capital Improvements Program and determine conformance with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve General Plan Conformance No. 90-4 and adopt Resolution No. 1432. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 90-4 AND RESOLUTION NO. 1432, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -14- (6104d) I [1 RESOLUTION NO. 1432 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FY 1990/91 IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 90-4) WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65401, provides that a local planning agency review a list of the proposed public works projects recommended for planning, initiation, or construction during the ensuing fiscal year as to conformity with the local general plan; and The Department of Administrative Services has submitted a coordinated list of all capital projects recommended by City departments for the current fiscal year in the form of a Capttal Improvement Projects List for FY 1990/91; and Staff has reviewed a description of the capital improvement projects and submitted it to the Planning Commission for review on June 5, 1990; and Staff has indicated applicable General Plan policies following each department classification to establish conformance with the General Plan (see Exhibit #A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach finds the Capital Improvement Program for FY 1990/91 in conformance with the General Plan. C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 3 1990 (CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 15, 1990 MEETING) AND MAY 1 AND MAY 15 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE MINUTES DATED APRIL 3, MAY 1, AND MAY 15, 1990, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -15- (6104d) 1 E. F. F-1 G. DISCUSSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO RESCHEDULE THE JULY MEETINGS TO JULY 10 AND JULY 24, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, CONSTRUCTION TRAILER/OFFICE ON ROOSEVELT AND ILLEGAL SIGNS ON PIERCE AVENUE (PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - Presented to the Commission during the Study Session at 5:30 PM. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE AN EMERGENCY ACTION TO DISCUSS THE FUNDING UPDATING GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, The Chairwoman was directed to prepare a letter to City Council regarding the need for funding for updating the elements of the General Plan. The Commission requested staff to prepare a detailed report on the prioritization of elements needed for funding with emphasis on the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Coastal Element. The following items were added to the Inquiries list: Commissioner Williams: 1. EIR FOR PIER PROJECT - WAS MAXWELL'S RESTAURANT ADDRESSED - Asked that concerns regarding outdoor dining and exhaust system relayed to Public Works Director. PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -16- (6104d) 2. TRAVEL TRAILER AT EQUESTRIAN CENTER IN CENTRAL PARK NEAR GENERAL OFFICE - Requested follow up. Chairwoman Ortega: 1. STATUS - PARKING AND LANDSCAPING CODE AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULATIONS Commission was told that the Code Amendment was pulled from the Council agenda because of concerns from the City Attorney and that the Regulations were still in the City Attorney's Office. A mechanism for reporting the status of items held up due to concerns/problems was requested to staff. 2. PAVING OVER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN DOWNTOWN AREA 3. CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Asked for a report to be completed within the next month. 4. ACTIVATION OF THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SUB -COMMITTEE H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams reiterated action taken by the Council at their meeting June 4, 1990, which included: Division 9 Rewrite approval, continuance of Special Sign Permit and Four -Plea Development at 15th. and PCH. I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE AT 11:35 PM BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO ADJOURN TO A 6:30 STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW AND SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS), TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1990, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kla APPROVED BY: 1 Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commi sion Chairman PC Minutes - 6/5/90 -17- (6104d)