Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-16APPROVED 2-5-91 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 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, A P 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. Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, spoke of the Planning Commission appointment process. Ms. Faber showed a chart to explain the developer financed Political Action Committee. Gerald Chapman, 6742 Shire Circle, stated he did not recieve a staff report for Item B-1 (Pierside Village) until this evening, and urged the Commission to continue the item because of lack of available information. George Arnold, stated he would not take money from developers or Huntington Beach Company for his campaign. Mr. Arnold also stated he could not be bought by these people. B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-17/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 90-18/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 90-2 CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 2, 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, which is included with this report. 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. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, explained to the Commission that this project development was part of the overall Redevelopment scheme that provides increased amenities for all groups of people. The Commission discussed their concerns with staff regarding parking, who holds title to the land, the public receiving staff reports in a timely manner and public uses. Chairwoman Ortega asked all speakers addressing Item B-1 during the public hearing to please identify the City in which they reside. I PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -2- (7819d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jonathan Chodos, 306 Third Street, representing developer, spoke to the Commission about the reductions that have thus far taken place on the project. He also pointed out the small percentage of coastline that is being proposed for this type of use. Mr. Chodos stated that this project will create an area on which Huntington Beach can stage many events. He explained that this will not be a paved parking lot, but an opportunity to increase view corridors and access to the beach. There will also be the opportunity to incorporate a police sub -station and a space -for the Jr. Lifeguard Program. It is also designed to dissuade skaters and cyclers, and encourage pedestrians. Mr. Chodos discussed with the Commissioners their concerns regarding views, base of elevation, and who the actual developer was. Dirk Voss, 2810 -17th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Voss stated he had taken an informal survey in six (6) different cities and none have a parking structure on the beach. The reason being too many crime possiblities, emergency response time in a subterranean structure, and obstruction of ocean view. Redondo Beach is the only beach with a parking structure; the crimes reported there include auto theft, vandalism, drinking alcoholic beverages and urinating in public. He said there is a parking attendant on the premisis, along with a police sub -station. Rita Healy, 16791 Bolero Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated she was opposed to the spanish style architecture, and urged the Commission to continue the item until after the election. Bob Biddle, 1710 Pine Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt the public was not given the material necessary to study the project. He favors an alternative site, and feels nothing in the project will benefit the public. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels the staff report does not reflect the figures staff is suggesting. Mr. Langevin read from a statement made by Mr. Talbert. Eileen Murphy, 201 - 21st. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Murphy stated she was adamantly against building on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, the area should be saved for the people. Gloria Treece, 505 Lake Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels a project is being proposed on land that belongs to the people. She stated she would rather have the beach, and there were other buildings that needed their money. Ms. Treece is also worried about the crime factors. She said the project needs to be reevaluated before a decision is made. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -3- (7819d) Debbie Cook, 6692 Shetland Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She said you cannot vote away an easement that belongs to the people. Ms. Cook stated that she felt an alternative site would be better, and she also feels restaurants should not be considered a recreation use. John Fisher, 6692 Shetland Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Fisher spoke of the Redevelopment Agency, and its role in the project. He also stated he thinks the Hilton Development was sold into foreign hands. Jo Christian -Craig, 529 Lake Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated she agreed with the previous opposition speakers points. Ms. Christian -Craig said she was concerned with the Environmental Impact Report, of which she did not receive a copy. She feels this project is putting the horse before the cart. Dick Harlow, 111 - 10th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that this project has been in the works for quite some time, and questions why all the opposition is coming in so late in the game. Mr. Harlow also discussed the project's plaza points and vistas. Haydee V. Tillotson, 164526 Ladona Circle, Huntington Beach, represented the Chamber of Commerce and expressed their support for the project. Ms. Tillotson feels that this project is the key point to the Downtown Redevelopment. She stated that the project is now off track because of the delays in getting approval and stated that the project is now one-half it's original size. Tom Van Tuyl, 1722 Park, Huntington Beach, from the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, strongly supports this project. His key points included: ° The project is totally consistent with the Specific Plan. • It is smaller than the original plan. ° It will not reduce access to the beach but facilitate access. • The project is inclusive in the parking lot, not on the sand. ° There are only two (2) areas of concern in the Environmental Impact Report that are not mitigable. ° Believes project is totally consistant with Downtown Redevelopment. Mr. Tuyl submitted to the Commission for public record a petition with the signature of persons in favor of the project. He urged the Commission to approve the request. Bob Mayer, 21100 Pacific Coast Highway, Developer of the Hilton, Newport Beach, spoke in regards to Mr. Fisher's comments, and suggested he get his facts straight before he makes such comments. He said they were irresponsible comments to get the audience inflamed. He also stated that not many developers would take the abuse given the developer of this project, and it is sending a message to responsible developers that they are not wanted here. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -4- (7819d) 1 Steve Bone, 21100 Pacific Coast Highway, Lake Forest, Developer of the Hilton, stated that contrary to the slanders the Hilton is paying the City $1 million in taxes. Mr. Bone supports the plan, and said it was time to take action, whether it be for or against. Dale L. Dunn, 17302 Almelo Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he is tired of going to Newport Beach or Long Beach to go to restaurants on the coast. Mr. Dunn also said he would like to enjoy the beaches without going surfing. Larry Geisse, 6811 Corral Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Geisse spoke in regards to the comments about going to other cities for restaurants and compared these people with the amount of people who come here to go to the beach. He stated that if you give a little you will end up giving a little more each time. He feels the project will bring many new buildings to the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, and encouraged the consideration of putting the project on the other side of Pacific Coast Highway. Cathy McGough, 6812 Corral Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She is not convinced of any lasting benefits from the construction of Pierside Village. Ms. McGough also stated she was appalled at the idea of restaurants and parking on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. She stated that she is not opposed to Redevelopment, just this project. Ms. McGough also stated that the senior citizens cannot even make it to the meeting, how are they going to enjoy the Pierside project. Chris Craig, 529 Lake Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that a petition with 3,000 names of people in opposition to this project were sent to the State Land Commission. Mr. Craig also feels that this project will pulverize the current businesses in the Downtown Area. He is also opposed to the view corridors. David Sullivan, 4162 Windsor, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels this project will have significant impacts on the community. Mr. Sullivan also feels the project is a visual and aesthic pollution. Pat Davis, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. She feels the project will be beneficial to the senior citizens and those who would like to enjoy the beach without having to walk in the sand. Mickey Shafer, 1818 Delaware Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the Commission should go forward with the project. Mr. Shafer also stated that as a senior citizen he is able to get around just fine. George Arnold, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Arnold stated his concerns about the parking and the crime element. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -5- (7819d) James Righeimer, 8101 Slater Avenue, spoke in favor of the project. He urged the Commission to vote tonight in favor of the request. He also stated that the area proposed for the project is not in very good shape now, and hopes to see some changes. Dave Burris, 419 Main Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He questioned the Commission on how much an ocean view is worth. Mr. Burris asked Robert Mayer if he would be opposed if the view being obstructed was in front of the Hilton. He also asked the Bolsa Chica supporters what their feelings were about losing their view. Mark Porter, 19561 Topeka Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He said there is not much left to be said that has not already been said. Mr. Porter stated that he did not feel this should be a Redevelopment project, for there is no blight in the project area. He also said that the City should not give away public land. There was a discussion among Mr. Porter and the Commission regarding previous Commission actions of which Mr. Porter was a part of. W. Dianne Easterling, 203 - 8th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she felt the staff report was inadequate. She also said that the land is supposed to be held in trust for the people, and she did not want to give up her portion to a developer. Loretta Wolfe, 411 - 6th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she had not received the Planning Commission packet in a timely manner. She also said she was not pleased with the view corridors. Ms. Wolfe spoke of the heights of the palm trees and the project. Curt Easterling, 203 - 8th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the views are being taken away and the project will hurt the existing businesses Downtown. Anne Hinkey, 21671 Bahama Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Hinkey stated she has been reading about the Downtown Redevelopment for 15 years, and wants to see it go forward. She said Maxwell's is already there obstructing views and nobody has complained about that building. She feels this project will create a better environment for the downtown area. Mike Roberts, 623 - 8th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Roberts asked the Commission to establisher their beliefs or values and make decision for better or worse. He stated that the Redevelopment of downtown will make things look better and create a better environment. Mr. Roberts also stated that it is necessary for the economic stability of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -6- (7819d) Thomas Pratte, 16341 Gentry Lane, Huntington Beach, stated that he feels the reason people are having a problem accepting this project is the approach and goals represented. He -feels it is necessary to upscale the clientele to increase revenues. Mr. Pratte stated that the present project has grown, then shrunk and the major problems holding it back are the public views. Lucille Harmon, 2205 Delaware, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Harmon also stated that she resented being included in the statements made by the people who have spoken in opposition. She stated that it insults her intelligence when people tell her what she likes or dislikes. Cecil Carney, 6402 Fallingwater Drive, Huntington Beach, architect, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that a lot of hard work has gone into this project, and it is a project to be proud of. Paul Horcan, 207 - 21st. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Horcan stated that he feels the development will only benefit the developer. He said the basic character of the land and Huntington Beach would be changed with this project. Jolene Foord, 6142 Fenley Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that each of the persons here tonight are here because of Democracy. Ms. Foord stated that her family was taken off land and put on reservations, which she feels is happening again with the project. She also stated concerns about the obstruction of views. Craig Doty, 9432 Harcourt Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the project is not going to encroach on any part of the sand, and he does not see any four (4) story buildings in the plans. Mr. Doty also stated that currently the area north of the pier is all trash. He also stated that there currently is a crime problem and this project and the Redevelopment of downtown will help resolve this problem. Natalie Kotsch, 1722 Park, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Kotsch said she had no problems receiving her staff report on time. She also stated that she spends thousands of hours at meetings regarding Huntington Beach, and has a major committment to this City. She feels the project will be a great asset to the community. Andrew Stupin, 812 - 13th. Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Stupin questioned the people opposed to the project, if they saw the same thing he did downtown. He feels the area is run down and blighted and definitly needs the help of Redevelopment. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -7- (7819d) Paul Vetri, 22225 Caminito Zaragoza, Laguna Hills, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that this is an opportunity for Huntington Beach to become an international landmark. Mr. Vetri said that he feels this town is a sleeping town, a jewel in the rough and wonders what will become of downtown with all the roadblocks being set to delay Redevelopment. Susan Speers, 708 Knoxville Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels it will attract to many tourists and the development should not be built on the beach. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ortega made a motion for continuance because of the reported lack of availability of the staff reports, the incompletion of the Environmental Impact Report and the lack of alternative project sites that would be environmentally superior. She also questioned who held title to the land. Commissioner Leipzig seconded Commissioner Ortega's statement. Commissioner Shomaker stated that she was strongly opposed to the motion. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, stated that it was unfair of the Commission to continue this item after calling a special meeting to hear the request. Commissioner Kirkland stated that voting in favor of a continuance is a cop out. He said they had just finished listening to four(4) ardous hours of public testimony and for or against a decision should be made. Commissioner Williams spoke against the motion. He feels there are issues that need to be mitigated and other concerns he would like to see dealt with before he could approve the project, but he feels a decision should be made. A discussion ensued among some of the Commissioners and staff regarding certain issues that they felt should be dealt with before a decision is made. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 BECAUSE OF THE REPORTED LACK OF AVAILABILITY OF THE STAFF REPORTS, THE INCOMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE LACK OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SITES THAT WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Mountford, ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Williams, Kirkland i �l PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -8- (7819d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO 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, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Williams, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None SPLIT VOTE - NO ACTION A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY ORTEGA, ORTEGA WITHDREW AND KIRKLAND SECOND, TO DENY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker NOES: Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig ABSENT: Bourguignon, Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 will automatically be continued to the next Reqularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, which is November 6, 1991. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Mountford ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER 11:00 PM REQUIRES AN APPROVED MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER 11:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford, Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -9- (7819d) B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-46/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 90-49/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-43: APPLICANT: RAINBOW TRANSFER/RECYCLING COMPANY, INC. LOCATION: 17211 Nichols Street (adjacent to existing solid waste transfer station) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-46 is a request for a household hazardous materials collection station adjacent to the existing Rainbow Disposal Transfer Station. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-49 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 960 (parking and landscaping). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 90-43, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-46 and Conditional Exception No. 90-49 with the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ron Shankman, spoke for the project. He explained to the Commission that the purpose of the site is to dispose of household hazardous materials safely. Janice Hose, addressed several concerns of the Commission. Ms. Hose explained in detail the operation and hours of operation to the Commission. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-46 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-49 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford, Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -10- (7819d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-49: 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. The property is over 20 times larger than the minimum required for the M1 zoning designation with most of the area screened from view behind a security wall and gate. Additionally, the areas visible from the public right-of-way have almost three times the required landscaping area and a 20 foot wide landscaping buffer is provided along Nichols Street. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for reduced landscaping is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-49 for reduced landscaping will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming (land, property, or improvements) in the neighborhood. All areas visiable from the public right-of-way have adequate landscaping. 4. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9608(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to improve the aesthetics of a project by providing green belt areas in new development. 5. The proposed reduction in landscaping will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 6. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-49 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-46: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed household hazardous materials collection facility properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. Adequate area is provided for vehicular stacking on -site. Structures are secured behind a block wall and are set back from the public right-of-way so as not to create a public hazard. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed to another on a site are properly integrated. The proposed household hazardous material collection center complements the existing solid waste transfer station. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -11- (7819d) 3. The access to and parking for the proposed household hazardous material colletion center does not create an undue traffic problem. The extra parking spaces will help to alleviate an existing off -site parking problem and adequate area is provided on -site for the stacking of vehicles. 4. The proposed household hazardous materials collection facility is consistant with the City's General Plan. Proper facilities for disposing of household hazardous materials are consistant with the Safety Element as it helps to prevent the illegal dumping of potentially dangerous materials. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 27, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. If outdoor lighting is included, 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. b. The site plan (or reference page) shall include all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3. 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 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. 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. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 4. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -12- (7819d) a. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. 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. c. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. d. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. e. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of the proposed household hazardous materials storage buildings. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 7. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed within six (6) months from the date of approval. 8. As a result of the subject sites close proximity (within 1,000 feet) to a school site, the applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions contained within the Government Code, the Health and Safety Code, and the Public Resources Code, relating to hazardous materials and emissions. 9. The business must comply with Chapter 1758 of the City's Municipal Code which requires any business that handles or stores hazardous materials, including waste, to inventory the hazardous materials on site and prepare a business emergency plan in case of an accidental release of toxic material. Additionally, all hazardous materials, including waste, must be handled and stored in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Waste oil is considered a hazardous waste. 10. Operation of the household hazardous waste collection facility shall be limited to Monday -Saturday 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. 11. During periods of heavy rainfall, the facility shall be closed and all materials covered. 12. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in front of the proposed block wall to help screen the barbed wire portion of the wall. PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -13- (7819d) 13. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 14. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-46 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-49 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 15. This Conditional Use Permit No. 90-46 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-49 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-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-48: APPLICANT: CHARTER SERVICE CORPORATION LOCATION: 501 Main Street (southwesterly corner of Main St. and Sixth St.) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-48 is a request by Charter Service Corporation to establish an approximately 2,100 square foot market/liquor store in the existing Town Square mixed use project located at the southwesterly corner of Main Street and Sixth Street pursuant to Section 4.8.01(b) of the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-48 in order to re -advertise the public hearing. Due to an error in the Orange County Assessor ownership roles, the residents of the condominiums were inadequately notified. The condominium residents will be properly notified for the November 6, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-48 to the November 6, 1990, Planning Commission in order to re -advertise the public hearing. THIS ITEM WAS AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGURARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS PAST 11:00 PM. C. CONSENT CALENDER None PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -14- (7819d) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990 AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford, Borguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED B Mike Adams, Secretary Planing Co'on Chairperson PC Minutes - 10/23/90 -15- (7819d) APPROVED 11/20/90 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 1990 Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Civic Center California P P P P A ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, P P 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. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, read and commented from an article in the Sunday Register entitled "Valet parking? It may be illegal", Los Angeles. Mr. Langevin compared Peppers Restaurant activities with those said to be illegal in the article. Commissioner Leipzig requested Counsel to look into the matter, to see if the law stated in the newspaper article pertains to Orange County as well as the Los Angeles area. B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU 9U-39 WITH rSrzt.1HL t'ZAIN110i�-vnO.LMU DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 90-30/TF_.NTATIVE TRACT NO. _ 14352/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 90-41 (CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 2, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ NEWCOMB TILLOTSON DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, Fifth Street and Orange Avenue This item was continued from the meeting of October 2, 1990, with the applicant's concurrence. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 and Coastal Development No. 90-30 constitute a request for a mixed use development project pursuant to Section 4.7.01 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The plans call for a 9,500 square foot market, 9,500 square feet of retail, 8,000 square feet of office, 68 residential condominiums, a 200 space City parking structure, and project -related parking. Parking is provided at surface level and in a three level subterranean structure. Tentative Tract No. 14352 is an 11 lot vertical and horizontal subdivision which divides the commercial, residential, common space, and parking areas into separate lots. Special Permits have been requested in the following areas: 1) To allow up to 15% ramp slopes in the parking structure on transition ramps from level to level. The Huntington Beach - Ordinance Code, Section 9605.1(b) states that the maximum slope for transition ramps with no adjacent parking spaces shall be 10%. 2) To allow deviation from the upper story setback requirements. Section 4.7.09 of the Downtown Specific Plan calls for the covered portion of all stories above the second to set back an average of 10 additional feet from the second story facade. The applicant is requesting an alternative design to meet the intent of this requirement. Section 4.7.09 also requires that the portion of structures over 25 feet high fronting Main Street be set back a minimum of 15 feet, and an average of 25 feet (exceptions are permitted for mechanical/elevator equipment). The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow setbacks of all structures facing Main Street to be averaged to obtain the 25 foot average upper story setback, rather than providing the full setback for each structure. E - PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -2- (7643d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-41 for review and comment a minimum of twenty-one (21) days prior to hearing, and one comment was received from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board. The comment letter and response to comments are attached to this report. Staff recommends that a negative declaration be issued. All recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated as suggested conditions of approval. Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permits, or Tentative Tract No. 14352, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-41. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is within the non -appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 or Tentative Tract 14352, the Planning Commission must review and act upon Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30. The proposed project will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan: ° Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas. Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the Coastal Zone. Provide visitor serving facilities in the Coastal Zone which are varied in type and price. Provide affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development No. 90-30 may be approved or conditionally approved only after it has been found to be in conformance with the Coastal Element by making the findings outlined in Section 11.0 of this report. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The project is within the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency is the property owner and co -applicant for the project, and will be assisting in providing affordable housing opportunities within the project. SPECIFIC PLAN: The site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and is subject to the standards of District 5 (Mixed Use) and the Downtown Design Guidelines. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -3- (7643d) District 5 is intended to provide a commercial link between the pier and upper Main Street, with flexibility to include office and residential uses above the first floor. This multi -use aspect is intended to re-establish the area as a Downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere, and by creating a lively place to be day or night for both visitors and residents. Higher residential densities and office uses are encouraged to establish this desired Downtown atmosphere. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: On August 30, 1990, the Subdivision Committee reviewed Tentative Tract 14352. Representatives of the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and Planning Commission were present. The Committee members expressed concern with regard to parking, affordable housing, and setbacks. Commissioner Williams requested that high quality landscaping be incorporated into the project. The Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No. 14352, noting that their action reflected only subdivision issues, and did not reflect other concerns related to the site plan, which are properly discussed at the conditional use permit level. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: On August 23, 1990, the Design Review Board analyzed the proposed project. Particular attention was focused on the project's scale and massing, and to the proposed method of addressing the special permit for upper story setbacks. The Board recommended that the architect reduce vertical elements of the building by such means as horizontal transoms, multipane windows, roof eyebrows, balcony projections, and lowering the rooflines where possible. The Board also recommended that more variation be incorporated into the Olive Avenue and Orange Avenue elevations. The architect made the requested revisions, and on August 30, 1990, the Design Review Board recommended that the Planning Commission approve the design concept, finding that it is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and is compatible with surrounding development in terms of mass and scale. The Board also recommended that the Planning Commission place conditions on the project to require that the final form be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of building permits, and that a Planned Sign Program be required to be reviewed by Design'Review Board. 1 PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -4- (7643d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project with some modification to building mass and circulation layout. The fifth story should be eliminated, and the required upper story setbacks should be adhered to. The buildings facing Main Street should be pulled back at the corners facing the mid -block plaza to create a "funneling" effect, drawing people into the public plaza. Relocation and consolidation of driveways on Fifth Street and Olive Avenue will help reduce vehicular conflicts. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-41; 2) Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 with findings; and 3) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 as modified by staff with one Special Permit and Tentative Tract No. 14352 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Newcomb, 2800 Lafayette, applicant, stated he reviewed the staff report and feels the fifth story can be reduced. Mr. Newcomb also stated that staff's conditions can be concurred with, and he urged the Commission to approve the request. Bob Biddle, 1710 Pine Street, expressed concern with the added density this project brings to the downtown area, since the residential units recently made available in the area, are not yet sold out. He is also concerned with parking availability. Dianne Easterling, 203 - 8th. Street, was concerned that the village concept was not being considered with this five (5) story project. Ms. Easterling was also concerned about the parking availability. Connie Mandic, 1112 Main Street, spoke in opposition to the project. She felt the project site was a unique opportunity to do something that would benefit the surrounding community. She feels the project will increase density but incur no benefits. Ms. Mandic stated the project lacks the village concept and will be strictly visitor serving, causing residents to go outside the area for services. Stuart Mackler, Huntington Harbour, stated the area needed a mixed use project cohesive with the village concept, instead of another visitor serving use. Mr. Mackler felt an anchor store, such as a larger market, was necessary to provide goods and services to the immediate area. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -5- (7643d) Phil Zisakis, 611 - 6th. Street, expressed concern with the traffic issue, stating that a traffic update is necessary. He would also like to see the project bring services to the neighborhood. Denise Schilling, 119 - 17th. Street, said he liked the convenience of shops and markets to service the area, but feels the proposed project will not deliver these needs. He feels the project is just another condominium deal. Bob Bolen, 1818 Pine Street, stated he has been a resident and business owner in the area for the past 30 years. He feels this project will effect his property, business and the entire downtown area. He expressed concern with parking problems the project will bring, and if no market is incorporated it gives nothing back to the community. Robert Remer, Newport Beach, assisted in the design of the retail portion of the project. He explained to the Commission why a large market would not be viable in the area. He referred to the site analysis for the area, and the fact that large markets would not be interested in locating in that area. Mr. Remer said the market would need 16,000 exclusive customers to survive, and with an unaffordable rent the developer would have to subsidize. Ron Dreyer, 16251 Magellan Lane, stated he was opposed to the project for all previously stated reasons. He also feels the downtown area resembles a prison. Jim Koller, Ballentine, said he felt this hearing was a fraud. As a property owner in the project area he feels the City hired a fraudulent appraiser because they were unwilling to pay market value for his land. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, expressed concern that there would not be a larger market. He also stated this was the last City land that could be subsidized. Jo Christian -Craig, Downtown District 6, expressed concern with the market shopping carts being used on inclines and in elevators. She feels problems have been created because the City continues to disregard the views expressed by the residents of Huntington Beach. Faye Ogden, 7531 Seabluff Drive, stated her concerns regarding the parking problems and would like to see a larger market in the proposed project. Linda Moon, 2134 Main Street, stated the 1982 Environmental Impact Report called for a traffic study which was not done. She said that there was no basis for saying that this project conforms with the specific plan. Ms. Moon also stated this was the last site for downtown services, and she urged the Commission to deny the request. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -6- (7643d) Andrew Stupin, 812 - 13th. Street, asked the Commission to take a look at the project area, and see that it's a blighted area clearly depicting the need for redevelopment. He stated this project had wonderful potential and the retail it created was necessary. Mr. Stupin urged the Commission not to undermine the efforts of Redevelopment. Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, expressed concern regarding the original RFP which seems to have changed into another condominium project. He asked the Commission why the City is paying for everything while the developer receives all the amenities. He feels the City should consider getting something out of the project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ortega asked Mr. Newcomb if the fifth floor were dropped would they be able to keep the sawtooth affect. Mr. Newcomb explained that they could probably keep the affect but it would not be visible from ground level. Other concerns of the Commissioners included: • The square footage of the retail. • The need for public services in this location. • The changing guidelines for the RFP. Consideration of a traffic study. • Long term planning questions. The Commissioners discussed a continuance to let Redevelopment work in more commercial use and to receive more information on the amount of future density and need for future parking. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, 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 NOVEMBER 6, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO INCORPORATE CHANGES AND SUPPLY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon, Shomaker ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24: APPLICANTS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH/URSINO DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Properties within the Coastal Zone PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -7- (7643d) Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 is a request to amend the Implementing Ordinances segment of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to recodify the existing March 1985 document, incorporate adopted Code Amendments from 1985 through August 1990, and add zoning maps (District Maps). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)3 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: An amendment to the Implementing Ordinances segment of the City's Local Coastal Program must be ultimately approved by the California Coastal Commission. Following Planning Commission and City Council approvals, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. 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 WILLIAMS, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 90-2: 1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The Local Coastal Program Amendment brings the Implementing Ordinances component of the Local Coastal Program in conformance with the Land Use Plan. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -8- (7643d) B-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24: APPLICANTS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH/URSINO DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa chica Street (west side of Bolsa Chica Street, approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue) General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is a request to redesignate a 2.85 net acre area, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, from a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial to a Medium -High Density Residential land use. General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is the third amendment request to the Land Use Element in 1990. Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to rezone 2.04 acres of the area from C2 (Community Business) zoning to R3 (Medium -High Density Residential) zoning. The remaining 0.81 acres (APN 178-233-04) located at the northernmost portion of the area is currently zoned R3. The General Plan Amendment will not alter the land uses that can currently be built on this portion of the site. It is only necessary to achieve consistency with the zoning on the property. The requests are being submitted for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and then will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision. Although the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not constitute any new development, it will allow for residential development of a maximum density of 25 units per acre on the site. If approved, the amendment request will allow for development of a maximum 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units on the 2.04 acre site. The balance of the area (.81 acre) will allow for development of maximum 21 condominium or 24 apartment units. No development plans have been submitted at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On July 11, 1990, the Environmental Review Committee determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would adequately address all of the environmental concerns regarding this project. Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff did not receive any comments during the review period. On August 22, 1990, after amending the project description to include the 0.81 acre portion of the site, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the revised checklist for the project and once again determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would adequately address all of the environmental concerns associated with the project. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -9- (7643d) Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised the revised draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff did not receive any comments during the review period. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-24. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for adoption; and B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1438 and forward to the City Council for denial; and C. Deny Zone Change No. 90-6 with findings and forward to the City Council for denial. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dr. Marc Leitner, 10821 Vida Drive, spoke in opposition to the request citing two (2) major concerns: 1) He stated that the proposed increase in residential uses will increase the need for commercial uses; 2) He was also opposed to an access road being cut through Charlene Circle, causing undue traffic. Cheryl Browning, 16711 Roosevelt Lane, urged the Commission to deny this request. She stated that this same request came before the Commission two (2) years ago at which time it was firmly denied. Charles Buscemi, 3288 Tempe Drive, stated he had stayed in the area because he knew of the growth possibilities. Mr. Buscemi did state, however, that because of traffic flows he did not see it as a commercial/retail location. Tony Ursino, 502 - 10th. Street, told the Commission commercial/ retail is not viable in this location. Mr. Ursino felt traffic flow was a major problem and had contacted City traffic to consider a turn access, but was told this would be highly unlikely. He also stated that they are not unwilling to do commercial, but the viability does not exist. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -10- (7643d) A discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the future of this location. They felt it was to soon to give up on a commercial use when future plans indicated an increase in residential growth to the immediate area. Commissioner Leipzig was concerned with the No. 4 and No. 5 finding for denial, he felt they were not relevant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-5, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Bourguignon ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1438 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 1438 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach reviewed a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and The amendment to the Land Use Element is to redesignate 2.85 acres of land located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street, approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue as depicted in Exhibit A (attached) from General Commercial to Medium -High Density Residential; and A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment 90-5 was held by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on October 2, 1990 in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -11- (7643d) SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium -High Density Residential will reduce the commercial land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area's ability to meet future commercial demand. SECTION 2: The Planning Commission finds that the land use d t'on of Medium -High Density Residential is too intense for esigna i the project site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission Huntington Beach on the 16th. day of October, 1990, roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams, Secretary the General for denial by of the City of by the following Planning Commission Chairwoman A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-3: 1. The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No. (Medium -High Density Residential) will reduce the land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the ability to meet future commercial demand. This is the future residential buildout of the Bolsa Chica Meadowlark area. 90-3 for R3 commercial area's based upon area and PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -12- (7643d) B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-49/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-52• APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: 7111 Talbert Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-49 and Negative Declaration No. 90-52 is a request to expand the Talbert Library (Main Branch) by 26,476 square feet to include a childrens wing and conference and meeting rooms. On the recommendation of the Design Review Board, the Library department has agreed to prepare a scale model of the proposed expansion, for presentation to the Planning Commission. In order to allow time for completion of the model, a 30 day continuance to the meeting of November 20, 1990 is requested. Additionally, a study session is requested for November 6, 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a study session on November 6, 1990 and public hearing on November 20, 1990. CHAIRWOMAN ORTEGA ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY SPEAKERS FOR THIS REQUEST THAT COULD NOT RETURN ON THE CONTINUED DATE TO PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND SPEAK. THERE WERE NONE. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-49 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-52 TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TO ALLOW THE LIBRARY TIME TO COMPLETE A MODEL OF THE PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland, Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND AMEND THE CONTINUATION DATE TO A STUDY SESSION ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990, AND A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NOVEMBER 20, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland, Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -13- (7643d) B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-44/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 90-34• APPLICANT: CONRAD BANKS LOCATION: 3612 Courtside Circle (Coral Cay-Huntington Harbour) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-44 in conjunction with Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 is a request to permit the conversion of an attic area within an existing two (2) story single family residence into a third floor exercise room pursuant to Section 9110.1(c)(2) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Section 9110.1(c)(2) specifies that the Planning Commission may approve building heights of thirty (30) feet and/or three (3) stories pursuant to the conditional use permit process and findings as outlined in Section 9110.4(a). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed remodel and addition to an existing two story single family residence is located within the appealable area of the coastal zone. Therefore, Coastal Development No. 90-34 has been prepared in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 90-44. Prior to any action on Conditional Use permit No. 90-44, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34. Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 may be approved or conditionally approved only after it has been found to be in conformance with the Coastal Element of the General Plan by making the following findings: (a) LUP. That the development project proposed by the coastal development permit application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element; (b) Zoning Regulations. That the coastal development permit application is consistent with the CZ suffix, the base zoning district or specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; (c) Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP; (d) California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -14- (7643d) �1 The proposed project, as submitted, conforms with the above requirements as follows: The project complies with the development standards contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, is consistent with the C-LUP permitting low density residential on the site, already has adequate infrastructure as the subject property is within an existing tract with infrastructure in place, and complies with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act since no coastal access exists at the site presently nor will exist after construction of the proposed project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-44 and Coastal Development No. 90-34 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Conrad Banks, 3612 Courtside Circle, applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the state of the Huntington Harbour Code Committee, and the purpose of putting a label on the room addition. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-44 WITH FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-34 WITH FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -15- (7643d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-44: 1. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and privacy of persons working or residing in the vicinity or will not be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room is compatible with existing or proposed uses in the vicinity. 3. The location, site layout and design of the proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room is properly related to the streets, drive and other structures and uses in the vicinity in a harmonious manner. 4. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-34: 1. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room as proposed by Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal element. 2. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room as proposed by Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 is consistent with the CZ suffix, low density residential development standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room as proposed by Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34, will have available, infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the C-LUP. 4. The proposed addition to an existing two story single family residence with a third floor 455 square foot exercise room as proposed by Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -16- (7643d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 13, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be 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. b. 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. c. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. d. The site plan (or reference page) shall include all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. 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. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -17- (7643d) b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-44 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 9. This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County -Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-44 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-34 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. C. CONSENT CALENDER C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 Commissioner Ortega requested that a date of continuance be added to the first motion in the minutes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1990, WITH ONE AMENDED MOTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 There was not a quorum for this meeting, therefore, minutes were not necessary. No action was taken. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -18- (7643d) [l D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AGENDIZED ITEMS - None Information regarding adequacy of work on a temporary road in the Ellis/Goldenwest section (Dahl Development) had been received by the Planning Commission within the last 24- to 48-hour period. Serious concerns had been raised about the safety of the opening of this road. The Planning Commission decided that a need to discuss and/or take action of this safety issue had arisen since the posting of the Agenda. ON A MOTION BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION IN ORDER TO DISCUSS AN ISSUE OF SAFETY REGARDING A TEMPORARY ROAD IN THE DAHL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD NOT BEEN AGENDIZED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED The discussion among the Commission included issues of public safety, and the street being closed, denying access to residents. Staff explained to the Commission that the temporary road was being built to permanent specifications. They explained that issues such as lighting, striping and railing were part of the delays. Staff also explained that the delays related to land acquisition were attributable to the City, not the developer. Commissioner Bourguignon went on record to say that the dip in the road that is concerning everybody is not as bad as the second dip east of Goldenwest Street which is deeper, and no one is concerned with that one. Commissioner Leipzig stated that he could not support the opening of the street early if it was not safe. Staff explained that the delays were being handled in a timely manner and they forsaw no other problems. The Commission decided there was no need to take action on the item at this time. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -19- (7643d) E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 Condition certain improvements prior to final framing rather than occupancy: The Commission discussed changing the timing in conditions of approval concerning permit releases. They discussed release at the final framing stage rather than the occupancy stage. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development informed the Commission that the Planning staff's role is to recommend conditions and the Commission's role is to adopt and amend the conditions as they deem appropriate. Counsel further stated that the Commission may run into trouble if they set policy for future plans, and that they are there to act like judges not policy makers. Commissioner Bourguignon suggested that instead of final framing stage which may be a fire hazard, that they use the wrapping stage. Mike Adams again informed the Commission that they could not dictate policy to staff, but they could modify staff's suggested conditions at the time of adoption. Commissioner Ortega strongly encouraged staff to bring the wrapping stage to the Commission as a condition, rather than occupancy. Commissioner Leipzig stated he would like to discuss the different stages with staff and consider different alternatives. After the Commission becomes aware of the different alternatives he would like to bring the discussion up again. E-2 Staff reports and accompanying materials to be available to Public at a certain time Prior to the meeting: Commissioner Ortega questioned staff on the public's access to Planning Commission staff reports prior to the meeting. Mike Adams informed the Commission that it is available to the public 8:00 Friday morning prior to the Tuesday meeting. Mr. Adams also informed them that the Library receives copies on Thursday evening, which are available for public viewing. F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Commissioner Williams discussed concerns over the following items: ° Bus sitting in • Conflicts with ° Outdoor seating parking. ° Parking at FHP annual review. the turnouts at Peppers Restaurant. traffic exiting from City parking garages. at the Pavillion and the impacts on the has become worse since they approved the 1 PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -20- (7643d) STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the agenda for Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 1990, was duly posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting; and Information was received by Planning Commission members and Planning Staff within the last 24- to 48-hour period; and Said information relates to the condition of work on a temporary road in the Ellis/Goldenwest section (Dahl Development); and Serious concerns have been raised about the safety of the opening of this road. NOW, THEREFORE, by a two-thirds vote of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission that a need to take action on this safety issue has arisen since the posting of the agenda. PASSED AND ADOPTED the 16th day of October 1990, at 7:00 p.m. Ayes Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig Nays None Absent Kirkland -i Other Items Commissioner Leipzig also expressed concern over the FHP parking lot being much fuller than identified in a previous parking study. Staff responded that they would investigate the situation. Commissioner Bourguignon gave a status report on the Dock Committee, saying that all members seem to be in accord and they were very close to an agreement. Commissioner Mountford questioned staff on the Pierside update. He asked whether sufficient progress has been made for the special Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 1990. Staff informed him that they felt there was much progress, also they are still having meetings with the developer but they will be ready for the meeting. Commissioner Ortega questioned staff about the letter Dennis Schiller brought up at the last meeting in Oral Communications regarding the FHP hearing. She also informed staff she had questions on two (2) items, one being the Moody Trailer and the other being the item Commissioner Kirkland brought up at the October 2, 1990 Planning Commission meeting concerning the banners, balloons, streamers, etc. seen at York Ford. Staff informed Commissioner Ortega that a permit had been issued for the York Ford banners, etc. Deputy City Attorney Sarah Lazarus responded to the Moody Trailer item. She stated that she had been working with Land Use and explained in detail the series of events that have taken place so far. They are continuing to observe and have removed one trailer. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams, Director of Community Development reiterated City Council actions of October 15, 1990. PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -21- (7643d) I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), ON OCTOBER 23, 1990 AND THEN TO THE SPECIALLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED Y: iAtf- Mike Adams, Secretary Planning ommi sion Chairperson PC Minutes - 10/16/90 -22- (7643d)