Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-22APPROVED 10/24/95 ----------------- ----------------- 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1995 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 4:00 PM GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT REVIEW A. Land Use Element B. Circulation Element REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P A P P P ROLL CALL: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Items B-4 and B-S were brought to the front of the agenda for action. Please note that the Minutes will reflect actions taken in their scheduled order. 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. NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) NO 94-1 - FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-2)• APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: City Wide The public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 94-1 is to receive public comments on the adequacy and scope of the document. DEIR No. 94-1 addresses potential impacts associated with the comprehensive update of the city's General Plan. No formal action on DEIR No. 94-1 will be taken by the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The public hearing is only to solicit and receive public comments. The public comments will be forwarded to the consultant for formal response and then included in the final EIR. Formal action on the final EIR is tentatively scheduled for the October 24, 1995 meeting. The DEIR addresses the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The DEIR is an informational document prepared under the guidance of the City of Huntington Beach to inform decision makers and the general public about the potential environmental impacts of the Draft General Plan. The DEIR responds to issues raised during the Notice of Preparation period and has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. The General Plan is the City's master plan of development for the next 15-20 years. It contains the citizen's vision for the future of Huntington Beach and translates their hopes and inspirations into a broad set of goals and policies. The General Plan is the foundation on which all future land use decisions are based. Since its adoption in December of 1976, the General Plan has undergone incremental updates to reflect the changing needs of the city; however no comprehensive update has occurred since the initial adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public testimony on the adequacy and scope of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 2 (p=036) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mark Porter, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, stated concern regarding the Transportation/Circulation roadway segment analysis. Mr. Porter said that the estimates and numbers in this section were questionable as current studies were underway, and the current estimates and numbers should be incorporated into the document. He also stated that Seapointe Avenue had not been incorporated into the alphabetical listing in the document. In reference to the Urban Landmarks section Mr. Porter indicated that Bolsa Chica Road had not been included as a secondary arterial and that the Edison Plant should be classified as a visual liability in Plate VR7. Jon Ely, 22051 Hula Circle, stated that the environmental impact report was a big document, and having no technical appendices available at the library, there was not sufficient time to comment. Mr. Ely stated that comments would be coming in as they worked through the document. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED OPEN. B-2 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.94-2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 94- 1 - COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN (CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: City Wide General Plan Amendment No. 94-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 is the comprehensive update of the city's General Plan. Since its adoption in December of 1976, the General Plan has undergone incremental updates to reflect the changing needs of the city; however no comprehensive update has occurred since the initial adoption. The public hearings on the General Plan update began on July 18, 1995. The Planning Commission at the meeting of August 8, 1995, continued the public hearings open to the meeting of August 22, 1995. Historic and Cultural Resources Element - The draft element identifies the historic and cultural resources in the city and sets policies that address their conservation enhancement, preservation and use. The draft Historic and Cultural Resources Element addresses some of the issues currently identified in the adopted Open Space and Conservation Elements. No major policy changes or issues are identified. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 3 (pcm036) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take straw votes on the draft Historic and Cultural Resources Element and, continue the Public Hearings on General Plan Amendment No. 94-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1995. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dr. Barbara Milkovich, stated concern that certain portions of this element were incorrect. She requested that this be reviewed. Loretta Wolfe, 411-6th Street, Historical Resource Board, stated that the Board fully endorses the recommendations made by GPAC. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED OPEN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SPEAKER, TO ACCEPT THE STRAW VOTES TAKEN ON THE DRAFT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.94-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 94-1 TO THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-3 URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94- 2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.94-1 - COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN (CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 8,1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: City Wide PC Minutes - 8/22/95 4 (p=036) General Plan Amendment No. 94-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 is the comprehensive update of the city's General Plan. Since its adoption in December of 1976, the General Plan has undergone incremental updates to reflect the changing needs of the city; however no comprehensive update has occurred since the initial adoption. The public hearings on the General Plan update began on July 18, 1995. The Planning Commission at the meeting of August 8, 1995, continued the public hearings open to the meeting of August 22, 1995. Urban Design Element - The draft element identifies the aesthetic strengths and weaknesses of the city and sets policies that address strategies for the aesthetic enhancement of the community. The draft Urban Design Element is a new element to the city of Huntington Beach General Plan. The Planning Commission should focus on all the new goals, objectives, policies, and programs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take straw votes on the draft Urban Design Element and, continue the Public Hearings on General Plan Amendment No. 94-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1995." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Ely, 22051 Hula Circle, submitted a letter dated August 20, 1995, addressing issues of concern regarding the Edison Plant. Mark Porter, 19561 Topeka Lane, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, stated that he would submit his comments to staff in writing at a later date, but said his concerns in the element were in regards to the image corridors and the Edison Plant Landscaping. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED OPEN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY KERINS TO ACCEPT THE STRAW VOTES TAKEN ON THE DRAFT URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.94-1 TO THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/22/95 5 (pcm036) B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.95-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-3: APPLICANT: Samuel Cho, 501 Shatto Place, Suite 205, Los Angeles, CA 90020 PROPERTY OWNER: Westminster School District, c/o Ken Fiolka, 14121 Cedarwood Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 14422 Hammon Lane, southeast corner of Hammon Lane and Sands Drive (Franklin School Site) Conditional Use Permit No. 95-26 and Negative Declaration No. 95-3 represent a request to establish a church at a closed school site and make site modifications to provide additional parking. Franklin School site closed in June 1994. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to establish a church with conditions to limit the membership to 400 and hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to I0:00 p.m., and prohibit any service prior to 8:00 a.m. for the following reasons: The proposed church with conditions imposed will be compatible with existing residential development because the church activity will be located in buildings within the center of the site and the existing playgrounds and fencing reduce any noise impact on the residential neighborhood. • Parking lot expansion will be set back 187 feet from residential on the north and 75 feet from Sand Drive adjacent to residential on the west which will mitigate traffic noise. • Sufficient parking will be provided. Driveway modifications will provide on site circulation within the main parking lot thereby reducing on -street traffic flow of motorists looking for a parking space. • A traffic study documents projected traffic levels will not reduce the level of service on the local collector streets and residential neighborhood streets. • A six month review will allow the community input regarding the church operation and consideration of possible membership expansion. • The proposed church will allow community use of the playground areas and play equipment. • The proposed church is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 6 (p=036) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Paul Tuzzolino, 14322 Tropicana Lane, adjacent resident, questioned whether the school site would be rented leased or sold to the applicant. He spoke in opposition to the request stating that the school grounds (open space) should be made available for the neighbors use. He also questioned what congregation the church would be. Foreman B. Lawson, 5871 San Souci Circle, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request stating concern regarding negative traffic impacts. Julie Chung, 6762 Vista Del Sol, church member, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the neighborhood would gain from the church, and the children would be allowed to use the park/playground during the weekdays. Jacqui Cohen, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with negative traffic impacts. She also stated concern regarding what type of activities the church would pursue and the times in which they would pursue them. David Shin, 1916 W. Lodi Place, Anaheim, church member, spoke in support of the request. He stated the church does good things for him. D.J. Martin, 5881 San Souci Circle, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request because of negative traffic impacts, the loss of tax dollars, children's safety and the types of uses the church will pursue. Boyd Cohen, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with negative traffic impacts, increased noise and parking on the neighborhood streets. Joel Kim, 5090 Barkwood, Irvine, church member, spoke in support of the request. Jay Chung, 6762 Vista Del Sole, church member, spoke in support of the request. Ann Hamilton, 5682 Stardust Drive, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with negative traffic impacts, parking on the streets and the loss of a neighborhood open space area. Thomas Pineda, 14341 Calneva Lane, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with negative traffic impacts, and parking on the streets. Mr. Pineda stated that he would prefer a police substation or a community center in this location. Eugene Change, 4505 W. 5th Street, 43, LA, church member, spoke in support of the church stating that they were expanding and needed more room. Charles Nolen, 5791 Sands Drive, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with excessive noise. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 7 (pcm036) Leontine Lawson, 5871 San Souci Circle, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with excessive noise, negative traffic impacts and the neighborhood children's safety. Janet Welsh, 5951 Frontier Circle, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with excessive traffic, noise and parking on the neighborhood streets. Pam Clifford, 14322 Tropicana, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that it was to large for their small neighborhood. Larry E. Greer, Traffic Consultant, stated that they had performed a traffic study and determined that the weekday trips would be less than the previous school had generated. He also stated that although the proposed church would generate a high level of traffic on Sundays, the study concludes that the residential neighborhood streets will continue to operate within the expected range of traffic volumes anticipated on local collector streets and residential neighborhood streets. Lisa Garcia, adjacent resident, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned with increased traffic and neighborhood children's safety. Kenneth A. Fiolka, 26491 Silverspring, Lake Forest, Westminster School District, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Fiolka stated that the school district had held neighborhood meetings to find out what they wanted in the site. The neighbors attending stated that the major concern would be that the playground remain available for the children's use. Mr. Fiolka said the applicant had agreed to that condition. He also stated that the money from the lease would help benefit other school sites. Samuel Cho. 501 Shatto Place, 9205, LA, Applicant, stated that they appreciated the neighbors concerns regarding noise and traffic and would work to mitigate any problems. He also stated that they will provide 211 parking spaces on -site. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the General Plan recommendation of churches being located on arterials with adequate parking and traffic controls. They also felt that the use would be better suited in a vacant Industrial or Commercial building than a neighborhood. Commissioner Tillotson disagreed and encouraged mitigation between the applicant and the residents. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 8 (p=036) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SPEAKER TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Speaker NOES: Tillotson ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SPEAKER TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-26 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Speaker NOES: Tillotson ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-26: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed church use with up to 600 members with services and Bible study every day of the week will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Access to the site is through narrow residential streets. The estimated number of trips generated by the proposed church exceeds the existing residential trips within the vicinity and the neighborhood. Adequate controls cannot be placed on the church to ensure that a variety of activities, e.g., weddings, summer camps, will protect the residential neighborhood from noise and traffic impacts. 2. The proposed church with a 600 seat sanctuary and auxiliary uses will be incompatible with the surrounding low density (Single Family Units) residential neighborhood. The proposed church with activities every day of the week on a proposed vacant public school site will create adverse traffic, circulation and noise impacts to the people living in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan which recommends that institutional uses, such as a church, be located on an arterial highway. The local residential streets were not intended or designed to serve as collector or arterial streets for accessing a church use. The proposed church is located within a residential neighborhood with access on local streets. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 9 (p=036) B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-46 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 95-8/VARIANCE NO. 95-12: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Naga Hamamoto, 6662 Alamitos Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 1014 and 1016 Pacific Coast Highway (inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Tenth and Eleventh Streets) Conditional Use Permit No. 95-46 and Coastal Development Permit No. 95-6 represent a request by Naga Hamamoto , property owner, to construct two (2), three (3)story single family dwellings. A special permit is also requested to allow a patio area within the required 25 feet landscaped front yard setback. Variance No. 95-12 is a request to all a maximum 35 feet building height in lieu of 30 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the two (2)single family dwellings at a 35 feet building height and denial of the special permit for the front patio for the following reasons: • The proposed dwellings are compatible in height, building mass, and building bulk with existing 35 feet high structures along Pacific Coast Highway. The project design complies with the Mediterranean theme established by the Downtown Specific Plan. The topography of the site is three feet higher than the highest adjacent street level. The project without the special permit creates an aesthetically pleasing and enhanced living environment because it allows for more landscaping than the proposed project (25 feet in lieu of 15 feet) in compliance with the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The recommendation is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Kaz Begovich, 3821 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, architect, discussed the height and patio issues and urged the Commission to approve the request including the special permit. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 10 (pcm036) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY BIDDLE, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-46, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 95-8, AND VARIANCE NO. 95-12 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 95-8: 1. The proposed three (3) story single family development with a variance to height and without the front yard patio conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. The proposed two single family residences will enhance visual resources within the coastal zone by providing the required fully landscaped front yard setback and architecturally compatible structures. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 95-8, with conditions of approval imposed, is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Specific Plan zone (Downtown Specific Plan - District 2) as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance applicable to the property. At the time of occupancy, the proposed 3 story single family residential development with a variance to height and without the front yard patio can be provided with infrastructure a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed 3 story single family residential development without the front yard patio conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Approval of the Variance No. 95-8 will result in no modification of the requirement of the C-LUP. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 11 (pcm036) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-46: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 3 story single family residential development without the front yard patio will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Single family dwellings are permitted in Downtown Specific Plan -District 2 subject to conditional use permit and coastal development approval. Several other three story structures are within the immediate vicinity. The structures will be built in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and will not pose an undue health and safety risk to residents in the vicinity. The design of the structures is in compliance with the design theme established for the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit the proposed 3 story single family residential development without the front yard patio will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Land Use Element, Housing Element, and the Coastal Element of the General Plan allow a variety of residential uses and enhancement and protection of coastal and visual resources. 3. The proposed 3 story single family residential development without the front yard patio will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed 3-story single family dwellings without the front patio comply with the Downtown Specific Plan development provisions except for the variance request. The design of the structures is in compliance with the design theme established for the Downtown Specific Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO. 95-12: 1. The granting of a variance to allow a 35 feet maximum height in lieu of 30 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Multi -family development is adjacent to the subject property and is constructed at the same maximum building height. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property has a three feet grade differential between the existing grade and the grade of the highest adjacent street. Since the highest adjacent street grade is used to measure building height, the topography constitutes a substantial hardship on the development of the property. The subject property is a residual parcel in an area of multi -family residential which is allowed a maximum building height of 35 feet. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 12 (pcm036) 3. The granting of a variance to allow a 35 feet maximum height in lieu of 30 feet is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Single family dwellings are permitted in Downtown Specific Plan - District 2 subject to conditional use permit and coastal development approval, a variance is required to exercise those property rights. 4. The granting of the variance to allow a 35 feet maximum height in lieu of 30 feet will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. Several other three story structures are within the immediate vicinity. The structures will be built in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and will not pose an undue health and safety risk to residents in the vicinity. The design of the structures is in compliance with the design theme established for the Downtown Specific Plan. Granting of the variance from Resolution No. 5760 will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide compatible building heights along Pacific Coast Highway. Also, granting of the variance to allow 35 feet maximum height in lieu of 30 feet is consistent with the Land Use Element, Housing Element, and the Coastal Element of the General Plan which allow a variety of residential uses and enhancement and protection of coastal and visual resources. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The special permit to allow a patio in the front yard setback does not promote a better living environment. The patio is not adequately separated from Pacific Coast Highway to comply with the exterior noise level guidelines for residential development as established in the current Noise Element of the General Plan. 2. Granting of the special permit will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience and will be detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood. A reduction in the required 25 feet front landscaped front yard setback does not comply with the intent of the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan to provide a aesthetically pleasing greenbelt along the State highway. Noise impacts from Pacific Coast Highway will be detrimental to persons using the front yard patio. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated June 23, 1995, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The proposed front setback patio shall be eliminated and replaced with continuous landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 13 (pcm036) 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. b. 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. c. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set for h 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). d. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials as approved by the Design Review Board on August 10, 1995. e. 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. f. 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. g. 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. h. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 14 (p=036) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plan 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 Chapter 233 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 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. c. A grading plan and landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. d. The property owner shall dedicate 5.00 feet along the rear of the property for alley purposes. e. Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans: 1) If the building is greater than 5,000 square feet, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. 3) The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification 4422 and #431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. 4) The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17 and City Specification #429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. 4. All building spoils, such a unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 15 (p=036) 5. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep 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. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first, the applicant shall complete the following: a. Remove existing sidewalk and replace with 8 feet wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb. b. Remove existing alley paving to concrete gutter and replace with 10.50 feet of new paving. c. Install sewer lateral. d. Install water service. e. Install CATV (Cable Antenna Television). f. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. g. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUI REMENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 2. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy. 3. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the alley right-of-way. A-CalTrans permit shall be required for all work on Pacific Coast Highway. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department PC Minutes - 8/22/95 16 (p=036) r� F� 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday3:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the Downtown Specific Plan fee as required by Resolution No. 5328. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 95- 46, Coastal Development Permit No. 95-8, and Variance No. 95-12 if any violation of these conditions or Municipal Code occurs. 8. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-46, Coastal Development Permit No. 95-8, and Variance No. 95-12 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DULY 18, 1995 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECOND BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DULY 18,1995, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PC Minutes - 8/22/95 17 (p=036) E. E-1 F. F1 F2 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS/INOUHUES Commissioner Sneaker - questioned staff as to the public notification process. He stated that the most common comment seems to be that the public was not notified. Staff explained that the applicant submits the mailing labels for property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed request, staff then prepares the legal and sends them by regular mail. Commission Speaker asked about sending the legal out through registered mail. Staff stated that this would cause a significant increase to the cost of all entitlement applications. Staff also stated that City Councilmember Sullivan had requested that projects proposed on vacant school sites have a 1,000 foot radius•mailout. Staff stated that all future school site issues would follow this request which should help to alleviate some complaints. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS NONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Senior Planner - restated actions taken by the City Council at the August 21, 1995, City Council meeting. He also informed the Commission that the City Council had formed a Subcommittee, to include three (3) City Councilmembers, to create a Re -use Plan for the closed school sites in the City. The Commission by minute action requested that staff forward to the City Council their desire to have a Planning Commissioner as a member of the Subcommittee. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Senior Planner - discussed with the Commission the items for the September 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 8/22/95 18 (p=036) 0 G. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the September 12, 1995, Planning Commission Study Session at 4:00 PM and then to the scheduled regular meeting at 7:00 PM A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY SPEAKER, TO ADJOURN TO A 4:00 PM STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1995, AND THEN TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Gorman ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kjl APP OVED BY: H&4d Zelefsky, ecreta Planning Commission Chairperson PC Minutes - 8/22/95 19 (pcm036)