Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-02APPROVED 1-23-91 L� 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2. 1990 Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM - Civic Center California REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A (unexcused) P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, N 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. Dennis Schiller, 9726 Puffin Avenue, Fountain Valley, stated that there were no opposition speakers to the FHP 6 month review from the property owners because the FHP Attorney had communicated to them that this matter would be continued until their civil litigation matter had been resolved. Mr. Schiller said that a letter had also been sent to Mr. Adams which he presented to the Commission. He asked the Commissioners to reconsider their decision because of the above stated facts. Cheryle B. Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, stated problems that she had previously brought before the Commission still exist. These problems are the J.T. Moody office in the middle of a residential block, which had previously been cited. Ms. Browning said she contacted Sarah Lazarus, Deputy City Attorney, August 22, 1990, and was told the next step was a $500 dollar fine, but when contacted again was told that the Code was a little shady in this area. She questioned why results were not being obtained, stating it was possibly because Mr. Moody contributes to Ms. Hutton's campaign, and some City Council Members' campaign. Ms. Browning's second complaint was directed at the Nerio Property. She said that the Development Agreement required that all structures be torn down by May 30, 1990 and this has not yet occurred. Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, stated to the Commission that on her drive to the meeting this night, she noticed earth movement at the bottom of Garfield, west side of Edwards. She did not think that they had grading permits. She also said that the Commission would be asked to enter into a Development Agreement with the above property owners tonight based on good faith, and this was something to consider. Commissioner Ortega questioned Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, if this earth movement was related to the Emergency Access roads that City Council approved. Mike Adams said he suspects that is accurate, but he will look into it and have a report for the next Planning Commission meeting. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO MOVE ITEMS B-6 and B-7 TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA WITH THE REMAINING ITEMS TO FOLLOW IN THERE ORIGINAL ORDER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-39 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 90-30/TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 14352/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0, 90-41: APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ NEWCOMB TILLOTSON DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, Fifth Street and Orange Avenue Staff is currently in the process of assessing the public parking demand for buildout of the Downtown core area, and determining how this demand is best met. Since part of the proposed project involves a public, City -owned parking structure, the determination of how and where public parking should be provided has direct bearing on this project. If, for example, it is determined that less than the proposed 200 public spaces are needed on this block, it may be possible to eliminate one level of subterranean parking. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -2- (7434d) By reducing the cost of construction, the developer may be able to correspondingly reduce the number of residential units, and/or modify the design of the building to eliminate the need for Special Permits. Given these considerations, staff recommends a continuance of one meeting in order to complete the parking analysis. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14352 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-41 TO THE OCTOBER 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO COMPLETE THE PARKING ANALYSIS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-4: APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: City Wide Code Amendment No. 90-4 is a request for an amendment to Article 985, Design Review Board, to change the appointment of membership from five (5) members to seven (7) which is to include one City Council Member, one Planning Commissioner, three City residents, and two staff members pursuant to Section 9853 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Code Amendment No. 90-4 with findings. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -3- (7434d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-4 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams, Mountford (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-4: 1. Code Amendment No. 90-4 to add two members to the Design Review Board for a total of seven (7) brings a greater range of experience to Design Review Board's evaluations and recommendations. 2. Code Amendment No. 90-4 will ensure greater compliance with Design Review Board guidelines established by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. B-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 90-3/ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-3/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 90-23 (CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ BIJAN SASSOUNIAN LOCATION: Two sites: one south of Talbert Avenue, west of Joyful Lane; and the other south of Happy Drive between Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane. The Planning Commission continued this item from the September 5, 1990 meeting in order to allow the applicant time to address the concerns brought forward by the Planning Commission and the public. These include: 1. Compatibility with adjacent properties. 2. Setbacks, building height and landscaping for buildings abutting R1 property to the South. 3. Deficiency in the number of required guest parking spaces within each building. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -4- (7434d) 1 4. Concerns that the affordable units would be for moderate income families only, excluding seniors from the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-23 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for adoption; B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 and forward to the City Council for adoption; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. Howard Zelefsky informed the Commission that at the September 5, 1990 Planning Commission meeting the public hearing was closed, and it was the decision of the Commission to re -open the public hearing. Commissioner Ortega asked staff to define first time buyer. Staff explained that a first time buyer referred to a person who has not purchased or owned a home for three years. The Commission decided to combine this public hearing with the public hearing for Item B-2 because they were related to each other. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Susan Bock, 7821 Lori Drive, stated she felt the developer was only interested in making as much money as possible, and did not have the people's best interest at heart. Ms. Bock said that the project area was senior zoned and should stay that way. Cheryl Campbell, 7801 Essex Drive, stated when she purchased her home she was told the project area would stay senior zoned. She also had concerns for decreased water pressure, added traffic and compatability with the Cape Cod type houses. Dr. Marc Bock, 7821 Lori Drive, urged the Commission to deny the request. He asked everyone in the audience that was opposed to the project to please stand. Dr. Bock stated that the City has a covenant, the project area is zoned senior and houses were sold in the area under this assumption. Dr. Bock feels property value will also be decreased. Shane Cary, 18176 Alice Lane, stated that the people opposing this project have no chance, since the Commissioners were all talking in favor of the project. Shane Cary also said the developer was supposed to scale the project down, but there was not much change. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -5- (7434d) Jim Sutton, 7801 Essex, was concerned with the crime problem that may occur with this type of development. He stated he strongly opposed the change of zoning. Margaret Rockof£, 7826 Lori Drive, felt this project was like putting a square peg in a round hole. Ms. Rockoff expressed concern for the senior residents currently in the area and the traffic problems. She also said she would like to see a continuance to work on a best effort with the developer and City since it was effecting the lives of a lot of people. Bijan Sassounian, 2124 Main Street, Developer, explained his effort to put together a project that was a benefit to the City and surrounding neighborhood. He explained that his main motivation was not profit. Vee Kennedy, 7821 Capewoods, stated she had noticed the developer taking pictures on a Sunday when there is minimum traffic and pedestrians. Ms. Kennedy is also concerned with the property value decreasing, senior citizens being left out and being told when she purchased up until two months ago that the project area would be senior zoned. Lee Collins, (previous owner of land), stated that of all the people that wanted to buy and develop the land, Bijan's proposed project would be the most beneficial to the community. Mr. Collins stated that other developers were considering apartments, and it could have been a low class project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioner's discussed the impacts, and concluded the benefits would outweigh the negative impacts. They also discussed the availability to seniors; they were concerned about changing the zoning. There were also concerns expressed that the density change and zone change were a violation of good faith. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 WITH MITIGATION MEASURES AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1 1 PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -6- (7434d) MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 3. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1435 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega, Kirkland ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 1435 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990; and General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 3.83 gross acre area of land from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential: and Such 3.83 acre area is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue west of Joyful Lane, and south of Happy Drive west of Joyful Lane as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on September 5, 1990, to consider said General Plan Amendment; and The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -7- (7434d) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives. SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan. SECTION 3: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is consistent with other Elements of the General Plan. SECTION 4: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 implements the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing affordable housing for moderate income households. SECTION 5: The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the fifth day of September, 1990. Michael C. Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega, Kirkland ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3: 1. The proposed zone change from (Q)R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 90-3. 2. Zone Change No. 90-3 from (Q)R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies within the Housing Element. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -8- (7434d) 1 3. The proposed Zone Change with mitigation measures would facilitate designs aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential area in regards to height, setbacks and landscaping. 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. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be 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. 6. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g., high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. All outside lighting shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. 7. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 8. 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. 9. Drainage system, per the Department of Public Works specifications, shall be incorporated into the project to maintain existing drainage patterns through the project site. 10. Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall be obtained to determine the appropriate course of action. 11. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the applicant shall: a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -9- (7434d) b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune. 12. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site, b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment, d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts), e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 13. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 14. Police and fire departments shall be notified prior to initiation of construction and the departments shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process. 15. Public Works Department shall provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. 16. A water plan shall be submitted to the water department for review and approval. The plan shall detail measures which the project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage. 17. 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. In addition, the soils analysis shall address shrink swell hazards on expansive clays. 18. The applicant shall provide a comprehensive built-in fire protection and alarm system. 19. The applicant shall contribute to the City's "Opticom" traffic signal control system at Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue. 20. Buildings closest to Low Density Residential properties shall generally not exceed two stories. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -10- (7434d) [1 21. A minimum twenty (20) foot average building setback shall be required for buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential (R1). 22. The Applicant shall provide paved, lighted and handicapped accessible, pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials. B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-12 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14357/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Bijan Sassounian LOCATION: South side of Talbert Avenue, west of Joyful Lane; south of Happy Drive between Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane. The Planning Commission continued this item from the September 5, 1990 meeting in order to allow the applicant to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the public. These included. 1. The density of the proposed project. 2. Setbacks, building heights, and landscaping along the southerly property line adjacent to R1 property. 3. Deficiency in the number of required guest parking spaces within each building. 4. Concerns that the affordable units would be for first-time buyers only, excluding seniors from the project. In response to the action taken by the Commission, the applicant has met with staff several times, and proposed modifications to site plan and affordable housing program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration 90-23, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 with Special Permits, and Tentative Tract No. 14357 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. The Commission had combined the public hearing for this item with Item B-1, because they were related to one another. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -11- (7434d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-12 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14357 WITH FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega, Kirkland ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-12: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 135 unit condominium project properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The access to and parking for the proposed 135 unit condominium complex does not create an undue traffic problem, because the parking structure has been shown to be safe and efficient and the surrounding streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic generated. 3. The planned residential development for 135 units does conform to the provisions contained in Article 915 except for the special permit requests, which improve the quality of the project (see Special Permit Findings for Approval). 4. The proposed 135 unit project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building, because the project is properly buffered from such uses by streets and setbacks. 5. The proposed 135 unit condominium will be compatible with the Huntington Beach General Plan and Zoning upon adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change 90-3. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The following special permits promote a better living environment by adapting the Planned Residential Development requirements to better suit the 135 unit condominium complex, which are compatible with the surrounding area: a. To allow a 7 to 10 foot front setback along Joyful Lane and the north side of Happy Drive in lieu of minimum 15 foot setback, for pool fencing and the common clubhouse building. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -12- (7434d) f] b. To allow a minimum rear setback of 10'6" with 20 foot average to the building face in lieu of a 30 foot setback along R1 zoned property. c. To reduce side -by -side building separation for Building 1 from 55 feet to 20 feet. d. To allow 50% of the project to be one story less than the remainder in lieu of requiring one third of the units in each structure to be one story less. e. To allow an average dimension of 75 feet for the main recreation area in lieu of 100 feet. f. To allow 15% to 20% ramp slopes into the underground parking structures in lieu of a maximum 10% slope on ramps with no adjacent parking, and maximum 5% slope on a 16 foot transition ramp at intersections with streets. 2. The requested deviation for ramp slopes to the parking structure is acceptable because: a. A traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer has been submitted which documents the impacts of the request. b. The deviation will not adversely affect the circulation and safety of the site structure, use, or adjacent use. c. The deviation will result in a more efficient circulation pattern and parking layout. d. The deviation will enhance the general appearance of the development and its surroundings. e. The deviation will not be detrimental to the general public health, safety, welfare or convenience, or injurious to property values in the vicinity. 4. The requested special permits provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, design and building layout, by allowing for efficient on -site circulation, buffering adjacent land uses, and allowing for a centrally located recreation area. 5. The requested special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The special permit requests incorporated into the project design will reduce project impacts to adjacent properties. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -13- (7434d) 6. The requested special permits are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 14357: 1. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design features of the proposed 5 lot subdivision for 135 condominium units are in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The analysis for General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change No. 90-3 has determined that this intensity of land use (High Density Residential - Maximum 35 units per gross acre) is appropriate for this site. 3. The General Plan has set forth provisions for High Density Residential Development and affordable housing, as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of use. 4. The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density of 30 units per gross acre. 5. Tentative Tract No. 14357 for a 135 unit condominium complex is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan because it provides a means of affordable housing for first time homebuyers in Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-12: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated July 26, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout, with modifications to density, parking arrangement, and building heights as presented to the Planning Commission on October 2, 1990. Final approval of building form, colors and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. 2. The developer shall offer 34 one -bedroom units and 48 two -bedroom units as affordable to moderate income buyers. During the initial 120 days of the sale period the affordable units shall be offered exclusively the either first time buyers or senior citizens. At the end of this period, the Redevelopment Agency may purchase the option to keep these units available under these circumstances for another 120 days by paying the interest on the developer's loan. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -14- (7434d) 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. b. 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. c. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be 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. d. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. e. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. 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). f. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials as approved by the Design Review Board. g. 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. h. If outdoor lighting is included, 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. 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. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -15- (7434d) 4. j. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: (a) The final building form, colors and materials. (b) Balconies along the southernmost property. (c) Pool fencing shall be of wrought iron or other see -through material. k. The site plan or reference page shall include all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 1. The final site plan shall note the location of 100 cubic feet of storage area per unit. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: 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), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall include intense landscape buffers as presented to the Planning Commision on October 2, 1990, and shall be in conformance with Section 9608 and Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. b. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. C. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works approval. d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. Final Tract Map shall be -,accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -16- (7434d) F�I 1 f. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking is available for employees, customers, contractors, etc., during the project's construction phase. g. Prior to issuance of building permits, a water plan shall be submitted to the water department. The plan shall detail measures which the project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage. 5. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. Private driveways shall be of radius -type construction, per Huntington Beach Standard 211 A and B.. 6. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings to be submitted to and approved by Fire Department prior to installation. b. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, 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. Three fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction, and at locations specified by the Fire Department. e. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. f. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code standards. g. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code standards. h. Fire extinguishers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards. i. Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney (Minimum 6'8" wide by 4'3" deep, minimum 42" opening. j. Security gates will be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard No. 403. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -17- (7434d) i k. Address numbers will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards. 1. Submit to Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification No. 426. M. Applicant shall pay for "Opticom" traffic system at Beach and Talbert. 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8. 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. 9. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months. 10. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. C. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment. 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 12. Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall be obtained to determine the appropriate course of action. 13. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the applicant shall: a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures. b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune. 14. Prior to initiation of construction, police and fire departments shall be notified and the departments shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -18- (7434d) 15. Public Works Department shall provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. 16. This conditional use permit and tentative tract shall not become effective until General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change No. 90-3 have been approved by the City Council and are in effect. 17. This conditional use permit 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 14357: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated July 26, 1990, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. "Notes" shall be revised to reflect correct zoning and General Plan designation. 2. At least 60 days prior to recordation of the final tract map, CC&R's shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development. The CC&R's shall reflect the and maintenance of all common areas by the Homeowners' Association. 3. This tentative tract shall not become effective until General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change No. 90-3 have been approved by the City Council and are in effect. 4. Landscaping and enhanced pavement within the right-of-way as shown on the approved site plan shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association pursuant to an approved agreement with the City Public Works Department 5. On -site sewers shall be private. 6. The water system shall be located in vehicular travel ways and dedicated to the City. 7. The developer will be responsible for the payment of the Water Master Plan fee, September, 1990. 8. The developer will be responsible for the payment of the Traffic Impact fees if in place at the time building permits are issued. 9. The project shall accept all contributory drainage from properties to the south, which shall be accommodated through the site in a manner to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -19- (7434d) 10. Construct full Public Works improvements to the centerline of Talbert Avenue. 11. The on -site sewer and water systems shall be shown on a City approved utility plan, showing all water services, fire hydrants, fire services, and backflow devices. 12. Developer shall submit water system hydraulic calculations to ensure system adequacy and line sizing. 13. The water system shall be looped, with no dead ends, and shall be installed per the Public Works Department's standards, ordinances, and policies. 14. Developer shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City except at access points approved by the City. B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-28: APPLICANT: CHARLES MACGREGOR & GREG LAVERS LOCATION: 7432 Prince Drive (north of Warner Avenue approximately 350 feet east of Gothard Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 is a request to permit a health club (Gold's Gym) facility within a mixed -use development with a request for joint use parking pursuant to Sections 9630(H) and 9602 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. This item was continued at the applicants request to allow the applicant to address concerns raised by the Public Works Department Traffic Engineer regarding the adequacy of the parking study, and the availability of all joint use parking spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Greg Lavers, 19680 Beach Boulevard, applicant, stated to the Commission that he was available to answer any questions they may have regarding the project. J. Gordon McClure, 7391 Prince Drive, spoke in favor of the project. He said he would welcome them to the area, and had no objections. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -20- (7434d) I 11 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-28 WITH FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams, Kirkland (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-28: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed Gold's Gym Facility properly adapts the existing industrial building to streets, driveways and other adjacent industrial structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The existing industrial building proposed to be used as a gym facility is compatible with adjoining industrial buildings and is oriented away from and buffered from the residential uses to the east by the 40 foot wide railroad right-of-way. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on -site are properly integrated. The existing industrial building will provide adequate area for a gym facility and the 163 on -site parking spaces through joint use and reciprocal agreements provide adequate parking for the gym and industrial users. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed gym facility does not create an undue traffic and parking problem because it has been demonstrated that there are divergent on -site parking needs and adequate parking will be available for joint use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-28: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 13, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The floor plans shall eliminate the aerobic use designation and replace the use with a cardiovascular use designation. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -21- (7434d) 3. b. Submit a draft joint use and reciprocal parking agreement prior to formal submittal. c. Submit one (1) complete set of plans as revised pursuant to condition la. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal parking easement(s) between the subject site and the five (5) 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. b. Joint use parking shall require that a Joint Use Parking Agreement be recorded between property owners prior to issuance of permits or occupancy. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. c. Submit a Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department which contains parking space designations for tenants/employees. The parking management plan shall be distributed to all members along with a parking site plan which indicates the joint use parking spaces available for the Gold's Gym members. d. The Gold's Gym identification sign shall comply with Article 961 (Signs). 4. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 5. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. Maintain existing fire sprinkler system pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. Provide 2A 1OBC fire extinguishers, maximum travel distance 75 feet. c. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -22- (7434d) d. 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. 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. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 9. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. All signs shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (Article 961) b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 10. The gym hours of operation shall be as follows: Monday - Friday 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Saturday - Sunday 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 11. No class type activities (aerobics, weight loss, etc.) shall be permitted without public hearing and Planning Commission approval. 12. Promotional activities and special events shall be prohibited during the weekdays. Promotional activities and special events shall be conducted during normal hours of operation and shall be limited to weekends (Saturday and Sunday). 13. The maximum daily occupancy of the gym facility shall not exceed 150 persons at any one time. 14. The applicant shall submit a yearly membership count. Any increase of members over 3,000 shall require a parking study and public hearing by the Planning Commission for approval. 15. All joint use parking spaces shall be designated and available for all joint use tenants. No outside storage shall be permitted which would prohibit use of such parking space. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -23- (7434d) 16. A review of the use shall be conducted within six (6) months of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter on a yearly basis, for 5 years, to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The review shall require tenant notification of the entire mixed -use industrial park.A parking study provided by the applicant shall be submitted 30 days prior to the review process. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions or code sections, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 may become null and void. 17. The developer will be responsible for the payment of the Traffic Impact Fees if in place at the time Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 18 The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 19. 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. 20. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 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 90-17/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 90-18/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 (CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 21 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and First Street (southeast of the pier). This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 1990, in order to allow staff adequate time to respond to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Approximately 60 pages of comments were received on the final day of the 45-day review and comment period (September 10, 1990. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the lead agency, in this case, the City of Huntington Beach, respond to all such comments in writing. Staff required additional time to compile the response to comments. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -24- (7434d) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-17 and Coastal Development No. 90-18 constitute a request to demolish one building (Maxwell's restaurant) and construct a total of 51,447 (total of 56,797 square feet) square feet in three (3) commercial buildings and a 5,350 square foot public service space on the subject 3.5-acre site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Adopt and certify as adequate Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1437 with Mitigation Measures, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Findings and Facts in Support of Findings; B. Approve Coastal Development No. 90-18 with findings; and C. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-17 as modified by staff with findings and conditions of approval. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners with each having various concerns regarding the project: Commissioner Mountford, expressed concern over parking. He said the site plan showed cars parked on the upper deck. Commissioner Bourguignon, requested to see separate parking for beach (self) and plaza shopping (valet). Staff explained that this was the goal. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, explained to the Commission that all present parking will be preserved, people do not have to use valet if they do not desire. He also explained a Parking Management Plan would be implemented. Commissioner Ortega, stated she wanted no off -site parking. She explained that the project must stand on its own. She was also concerned that the public felt they did not have access to the Staff Report and strongly urged for a continuance, which would also give them time to work further with the applicant. Commissioner Leipzig expressed his concern regarding the following items: ° Page 9 - Three (3) staircase, he would like to see only two (2) . ° Page 7 - Staff does not have alternative sites, which he feels are absolutely necessary when preparing an Environmental Impact Report. Staff Report has mention of easement. ° Page 16 - He sees a shortfall of 104 parking spaces. ° Page 28-31 - Upper stories of project not serving beach goers. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -25- (7434d) He also requested staff to clarify their definition of recreation (recreational uses). A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TO GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE TIME TO READ THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STAFF REPORT, AND GIVE STAFF TIME TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON SOME CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Ortega asked anybody in the audience that would not be able to speak in 30 days, to please come forward and speak. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Luan Prior, Candidate for 58th. Assembly District, discussed her opinions which included: • The City of Long Beach's move toward historical memorials. ° Historical value of the current buildings, facades that can be incorporated into new buildings. • Valet parking. • Affordable housing. Dick Harlow, told the Commission he felt it was totally inappropriate for Ms. Prior to use this meeting as a political platform. He also asked the Commission to take a look at Long Beach, and asked if that's what we want our City to be. Mr. Harlow said the Planning Commissioners and City Council have done pretty well with the development of the City and should be commended. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. The Commission discussed a continuance and some of the concerns. Commissioner Leipzig: Site utilized for recreation as well as commercial. ° Reduction in square footage of project area. ° Study session where staff and applicant can come together. ° Special meeting was a good idea. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -26- (7434d) I 1 Commissioner Kirkland: Did not favor continuation. ° Stated project was essential, and failed to see how the use of 100 yards of 8 1/2 miles will delete any recreation use. Three (3) quality restaurants would increase cash flow. Commissioner Ortega: ° Directly address future use parking demand and Caltrans Report for year 2000. ° Community Service Commission did not receive material to review project. Correct information concerning the three (3) staircases being represented in the plans versus the two (2) staff says currently exists. She said she thought there were currently three (3) staircases. ° Alternative site absolutely necessary to be built into the Environmental Impact Report. ° Clarification of the 104 parking space shortfall. ° Beach level areas serving beach goers what about other levels. ° Parking Structure not being operational during storms (flooding). Did City Council know of the easement when the 1982 Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan were approved? Did each Commissioner receive a copy of the 1982 Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan as she requested? ° Address in the Environmental Impact Report a more thourough history of the property, with a historic layout. Commissioner Mountford: ° Parking in the site plan is unacceptable. Commissioner Bourguignon: Part of recreation for senior citizens is dining in restaurants. ° Would like to see modern building that meets code for restaurants. Commissioner Shomaker asked if Mike Adams could address some of the concerns mentioned this evening. Mr Adams addressed some of the concerns. The Commission discussed the forthcoming agendas and whether they should call a special meeting. Commissioner Ortega requested the 30th. of October and the other Commissioners prefered the 23rd. of October. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -27- (7434d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO MOVE THE CONTINUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 TO A SPECIAL MEETING DATE OF OCTOBER 23, 1990, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE FORTHCOMING AGENDAS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 HOLLY SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: APPLICANT: PACIFIC COAST HOMES/CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: Holly-Seacliff Masterplan Area On June 18, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5390 establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of Development Agreements. Traditionally, a Development Agreement is a contract between the City and developer that provides assurance to the developer that existing regulations and policies, in effect today, will apply in the future. In exchange for this commitment, the City should receive benefits that it would not typically derive through standard development exactions. On February 1, 1990, Pacific Coast Homes proposed the idea of a Development Agreement to the City for the Holly-Seacliff area. In June, 1990, Pacific Coast Homes outlined in a letter to the City Council, their basic premise for the agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement as being in conformance with the General Plan based upon findings and recommend its adoption to the City Council. Chairwomam Ortega disqualified herself from this hearing because of the FPPC Rulings, her private property backs up 300 feet to the subject property, and the outcome could benefit her financially. She turned the Chair over to Vice Chairman Kirk Kirkland. Commissioner Leipzig was concerned with the genuine City and the ones reimbursable to the developer. A ensued between Commissioner Leipzig and Staff to tr between the two. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. benefits to the discussion y to distinguish 1 PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -28- (7434d) Bill Holman, 2120 Main Street, representing applicant, discussed the Agreement with the Commissioners. He explained in detail their obligations as agreed to in the Agreement. Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, discussed points of order with the Commission. Ms. Faber also went through the Agreement and pointed out the points she did not agree with. Shirley Detloff, 6812 Laurelhurst Drive, expressed concerns about the impacts on the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. She also feared this Development Agreement would set a bad precedent for future Development Agreements. Ms. Detloff also felt the public did not have enought time to review the document. John Fisher, 6692 Shetland Circle, stated he could not comment on the document because he had not had it long enough to study. He urged the Commission to address the fact the they did not have sufficient time to review. Bob Biddle, 1710 Pine Street, stated he had not received the Agreement in time to review it properly. He discussed with the Commission the points in the Agreement that he did not agree with. Lucy Dunn, 2150 Main Street, spoke in opposition to the Agreement. She made clear the points she would like to see clarified in the Agreement. George Arnold, 17501 Newland, stated that the City did not need a park in that area, it needs commercial and industrial. He stated that the City of Huntington Beach runs people out. Roger Work, spoke in favor of the project. He discussed the acquisition of the eight (8) acres of park land and the valued residential land. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners discussed the comments made and the major points of the Development Agreement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE HOLLY-SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND ITS ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: Ortega MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -29- (7434d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - HOLLY-SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: 1. The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. The Development Agreement recognizes that a future specific plan will implement the Master Plan. 2. The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribe for, the land use district in which the real property is located. 3. The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, because infrastructure improvements and park land dedication will be expedited. 4. The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, because it is consistent with the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and incorporates the mitigation measures from Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. 5. The Holly Seacliff Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property values because development and infrastrusture improvement will occur on a schedule outlined in the Agreement. C. CONSENT CALENDER C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: Leipzig MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -30- (7434d) E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Commissioner Ortega - questioned Mike Adams about a Zoning Administration decision regarding outdoor eating/dining in the Main -Pier Phase I area. She also stated that Mike Strange had told her that he was under the assumption that there was an agreement between the Commission and Director of Community Development that outdoor eating/dining would be approved by the Director not the Planning Commission. Mike Adams stated that there was no such agreement and his decision was based on a case by case basis, or trial basis. He said that the issue would be brought before the Commission at the six month review. Commissioner Ortega requested a list of the conditions in the next Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Ortega also requested a report on the Moody office in the next Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Leipzig: - requested from staff a response to Dennis Schiller's complaint, regarding FHP, during the Oral Communications. PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -31- (7434d) Commissioner Mountford - requested a Status Report regarding the Pierside Project at the October 16, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, so the Commissioners can keep abreast of the situation. Commissioner Kirkland - requested staff to investigate the banners, balloons, streamers, etc. seen at York Ford. He would like to know if they have applied for a CUP. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1990, AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED /kj 1 Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig None Williams None APPROVED B Mike Adams, Sec tary Plan ing irperson I 1 PC Minutes - 10/2/90 -32- (7434d)