While the planning commission welcomes public involvement and free speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protective speech.

Those comments will not inform or be considered by this planning commission and may cause the chair to interrupt the speaker.

Such comments will not be consented to or otherwise adopted by the planning commission in its discussion and findings for any matter tonight.

Thank you.

This time I'd like to ask Commissioner Goldberg to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

May we please get a roll call?

Chair Bush.

Here.

Vice Chair Babano.

Present.

Commissioner Theonis.

Commissioner McGee is absent.

Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

Commissioner Goldberg.

Here.

Commissioner Clifford.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

This time public comments.

Now is the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening.

Do we have any public comments?

We have no one currently signed up to speak on items that are not on the agenda.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda is public hearing on the appeal of the zoning administrators' approval of conditional permit number 24-011.

The mitigated negative declaration number 24-002 at Redondo Circle Industrial Project.

Planning Commissioners, please state your disclosures and regarding this item.

Please start on my right.

Along with the developer there.

Yes, uh Principal Planner Joana Cortez will be giving the presentation.

The item before you is located at 760 Redondo Circle.

It's located at the terminus of Redondo Circle.

The nearest major intersection is Gothard Street and Talbot Avenue.

The general planned land use designation is industrial, and the zoning designation is industrial limited.

The project site is surrounded by industrial uses to the north and to the west.

And there is also a uh religious assembly use there along with an existing uh railroad right-of-way that's immediately adjacent to this site.

There is multifamily development and a park to the right or to the east, and single family development to the south.

So the class before you today is to demolish an existing lumber yard and remove all associated site improvements, including all railroad services, and construct two industrial warehouse buildings, approximately 40 feet in height, one at 98,360 square feet, and the other at 87,552 square feet.

Each building is proposed with two office and mezzanine floor units and truckloading docks on an approximately 9.59 acre site.

A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and all suggested mitigation measures have been provided along with the suggested findings and conditions of approval in your agenda packet.

The following are uh photos of the existing site.

Here we have to the north the front of the existing lumber yard right here.

Um, then to the south of the project, we have Taylor Drive.

This is the rear of the lumber yard.

This is the single family residential.

And then to the east, this is the east side of the site.

This is Parkview Lane, which leads to the multifamily residential here at the end of the street, along with uh Terry Park further to the east.

This is the reliable lumber site from within the interior.

As you can see, there is uh it's an outdoor operation.

Then along Redondo to the east, there are other existing industrial uses.

So to the east and to the west, the project is surrounded by other industrial uses.

Here we have a site plan of the proposed project along with a breakdown of the zoning designations that surround the subject site.

Once again, we have open space to the east, residential high density to the east as well, along with industrial to the north and east.

To the south, we have Taylor, across Taylor, we have low density residential, and as you can see, research and technology, which is an industrial uh type of zoning, and a public, semi-public, or religious assembly use that's right there, and right here in between, we have the existing railroad right-of-way.

Um, the project will utilize there's currently two existing uh public driveways, minimizing the changes to the established circulation patterns.

The site once again is located at the end of Redondo Circle with access to major arterials, including Talbot Avenue and Gothard Street, which will serve, which serve the surrounding industrial area.

Redondal Circle will remain the primary point of ingress and egress consistent with the existing lumber yard, as well as the other industrial uses and the neighboring uses that are right there.

Conditions have been added to limit the rear gate.

There's an existing gate right here for emergency vehicle access only.

The the condition additional landscaping and taller walls along the south and eastern lines will uh in conjunction with the orientation of the buildings which have docks that are enclosed by the existing by the proposed building and are face each other here along the center of the site.

Provide adequate buffer to the nearest uh residential property to the south.

The arrangement of the structures and parking and circulation areas exceed the quality that's been set by the existing development.

And by incorporating more, you know, in addition to that, it exceeds the quality of that's been set by that development, incorporating more than the minimum required parking spaces as well as building setbacks.

You can see that there's pretty large setbacks along the side.

The proposed project is located within an established industrial area and incorporates a contemporary architectural treatments that result in quality new buildings.

The layout of the proposed warehouses, along with the conditions that have been mentioned, will allow for the development of an industrial site that's more compatible and therefore less impacting to the residential uses to the south and the east.

A public hearing was held for the project at the March 4th zoning administrator meeting.

It was approved with modified conditions of approval by the zoning administrator.

The project was then appealed on March 9th by Council Member Burns, who appealed to the project regarding the wall height.

In addition, on March 12th, supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility or SAFER also appealed the project, citing that the MND or the mitigated negative declaration was deficient.

On April 23rd, SAFER withdrew their appeal, stating that by implementing additional measures agreed upon with the property owner and applicant, the current document was adequate.

I will allow the applicant to kind of go further into this with the planning commission during their presentation.

While it was not clear in the appeal for the wall being too low, which wall was being was to consider too low, staff has made some assumptions that it was pertaining to the Taylor Drive along the south.

Staff has gone out to measure, and it's a slightly over seven feet.

It kind of varies in height, but it's approximately seven feet, and staff is suggesting a condition to require that the proposed wall be raised to nine feet.

To the east, we're also asking that the wall be raised to nine feet.

And this is just showing the existing condition of the tallest point of the wall.

Here is the uh visitor parking for the residential development.

There is an existing 14-foot wall.

So looking at city records, it looks like there is an eight-foot retaining wall, and it's topped with a six-foot high wall to protect the dirt and retain the dirt that's there.

So six foot on the reliable lumber lumberyard site, 14 feet on the residential side.

And to kind of give you some perspective, we there's a car parked, and the typical height of a vehicle is about five to six feet.

So to kind of give some perspective of how tall that wall is.

Staff has reviewed the project and has made the following suggested findings to support the conditional use permit and the mitigated negative declaration.

The proposal to replace the existing lumber yard with the two warehouse buildings will benefit the residential properties by eliminating outdoor operations and ensuring that future activities take place entirely within the enclosed buildings.

Additionally, the railroad service on the site will be discontinued as the future warehouse tenants will no longer rely on train deliveries.

The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the city's general plan.

The proposed warehouse buildings are compatible with the surrounding industrial area and both in height and overall character.

And their architecture reflects the quality and design uh design of comparable modern industrial developments.

It's located within an established industrial area.

The project incorporates once again uh architectural elements that result in an attractive well-designed buildings while still maintaining additional operational buffers and treatments to protect the nearby sensitive uses to the south and the east.

Finally, the project complies with the city zoning ordinance.

The city, the applicant is not requesting any deviations or variances with this request.

It complies uh with all applicable development standards, including height, parking, setback, and floor area ratio.

Uh additionally, a supplemental noise assessment was done to address the concerns raised specifically to truck operations for the spec buildings, and based on the results of the assessment, additional conditions have been added to the use.

And I'd like to take this opportunity to kind of quickly go over the conditions that relate specifically to the use of this project.

One of them being that all warehouse vehicles shall be parked on site.

Truck trailers shall not occupy required on-site vehicle parking spaces.

Vehicles associated with the site's operation will not use surrounding residential streets at any time.

There shall be no loudspeakers or amplified announcements.

Exterior building light fixtures and parking lot lining shall be shielded and directed to cast light downward and inward toward the property so as to prevent glare and spillage onto adjacent residential properties.

Light shall be dimmed to the lowest security level from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

daily.

All primary warehouse operations shall occur within the interior of a building.

Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment shall not be permitted unless a conditional use permit is approved for the use, which would then trigger an additional uh public hearing.

During construction and operation, the use shall have ingress and egress from a Dondo Circle only.

The driveway on Taylor Street shall be used for shall be for emergency vehicle access only.

No more than six trucks per building per hour shall be permitted on site between the hours of 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

Truck idling shall be limited to five minutes.

All on-site truck circulation shall be limited to the center truck court area between 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

daily.

The perimeter drive aisle shall not be used for on-site truck circulation during this time.

And in the event of multiple verified violations of the Huntington Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the applicant shall immediately meet with the community development department to discuss mitigation measures.

Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request based on the following that it's consistent with the general plan's land use and zoning designations.

It's compatible with surrounding industrial uses.

The project will not generate significant environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA.

It eliminates outdoor operations and replaces them with two new warehouse buildings with indoor operations and conditions them as so.

It eliminates train delivery services to the area, and finally, the project incorporates contemporary architectural elements that result in an attractive, well-designed buildings while still maintaining additional operational buffers and treatments to protect the nearby sensitive uses based on the way the docks are oriented towards each other.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Staff has received five letters against the project.

We did receive one in support.

In addition, this is all in addition to SAFER's withdrawal of their appeal.

Staff is present to help answer any questions.

I also have a representatives from public works from fire department along with our third-party environmental consultants from Somas.

I have Alien Freshad here that can help answer questions more technical questions.

And then finally, I have our applicant here along with their team to help answer any questions.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Staff is available once again for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

At this time, uh commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

If so, we'll start on my right.

Mr.

Clifford?

Yeah, I'd like to make a confirm a few questions of mine.

Um could you run through who who is who currently has the landscaping responsibility off Taylor Drive?

What's the situation there?

The landscaping for which side?

Are you talking?

Are you referring to Taylor?

Off Taylor, yes.

Yeah, so Taylor.

It is the property owner for the property.

So part of this, one of the code requirements is to dedicate a portion of it to the city.

So let me see if I have a better view of it.

You can kind of see right here.

It kind of jots out right here.

And so part of it is to dedicate a portion of this to the city to allow them to do right-of-way improvements, which will include curb, gutter, sidewalk.

There will be a four-foot-wide landscaping buffer in front of the walls, in addition to the landscaping that is required as part of the right-of-way improvements.

They will be the private side will be done by the uh property owner, and any excess that's in the right-of-way will also be uh maintained by the property owner through a license agreement.

But it is currently should be done by the property owner.

Okay, so then after the changes, the proposed changes, uh, there'll be a four-foot planner, and that'll be responsibility of the city to maintain and the four-foot-wide planter that's directly that'll be in front of the wall will be on private property, so it would be the property owner.

The like any type of public right-of-way improvement.

So if you have a landscape planter with sidewalk, it's typically the property owner that maintains that landscaping.

Okay, then you're gonna install a sidewalk.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um could you run me through I understand that um the zoning was uh considered being changed a few years ago.

Could you run me through what happened there, please?

The zoning has never been changed.

It's been industrial since I've did some research to kind of see if there was any changes to the zoning designation.

There was no changes in the zoning designation, it's always been industrial.

However, around 2022, the site was identified as a potential um housing element site for uh housing development for housing element, however, nothing ever came of it, so it just kind of was left alone, so no changes were ever done.

Okay, so there was consideration to change to a housing zoning, and it just never happened.

It was just identified as being a suitable site.

Okay.

Um the the current operations uh for the lumber yard.

Do you does that bring in um sales tax revenue for the city?

I know I don't know if it's a just a distribution operation, maybe it's a better question for the for the applicant.

Maybe for the applicant, but I imagine I'll wait on that one.

Sorry.

Um and then do you know the current hours of operation for the lumber yard?

Um based on uh the uh conditional use permit that originally approved the site.

It is um from what I I don't have it in front of me, but it's during the week during the day I want to say up to 6 p.m.

uh weekday.

And I think it is my understanding is that it is closed on the weekends.

Okay.

That's all the questions I have.

Thank you.

Mr.

Babano, Mr.

Thenis.

Okay.

Um had a few questions.

Um, first of all, um in the uh industrial zoning, uh, I believe a conditional use permit is required for very very good for the city to put this in their code.

Uh conditional use permit is required when an industrial building proposed industrial building is located within 300 feet of of a resident, an R zone.

Is that correct?

There's certain there's multiple provisions that kind of trigger it, but res it being adjacent to residential is one of them.

Yeah, within 300 feet, right?

So this requires a conditional use permit.

And then in that in that code, it actually states why what what we're going to address.

There's two things listed, and I and I forget what they are.

Could you remind me what those two things we're supposed to be looking at that we're supposed to consider for the conditional use permit?

It listed two things for the purpose of the conditional use permit.

One second.

Oh, maybe I could remind you.

It was traffic and noise, right?

That that was the stated purpose in the in the uh conditional use permit.

And so you you correct you you we properly did a uh we hired SOMAS to do a sound study, but um in the in the sound study that SOMAS did, they did not um they did not there were no no they used a uh a baseline sound study.

And can you tell me why they did not uh study other noise noise sources like trailer dropping, um you know, connecting disconnecting a tractor.

Uh that that's I was wondering why.

Do you know why they omitted that from the sound study?

What why that wasn't a part of it?

Because that's what you do in a warehouse operation.

You obviously have to connect and disconnect the tractors from the trailers.

Good evening.

Planning commission members.

Far shot hang with Sumus.

We did the sound study based on um uh truck operations at an existing facility, uh restaurant um uh, I believe supplies uh off of Gothard in Huntington Beach.

Um those measurements were taken uh for delivery of a uh basically an 18-wheeler truck to the uh loading docks at that existing facility, and so the noise was based on that uh uh reference noise uh source.

Does that answer your question in terms of uh right?

My understanding is at the restaurant depot, we had a tractor trailer entering a warehouse, backing up to the dock, and then leaving the dock, and we took the sound that as a sound source.

What out of curiosity, why were the other operations typically associated with this type of development omitted from that study?

Was there a reason for that?

Uh that was basically assumed to be the type of operation that occurs at the proposed loading docks, and uh there was uh basically a uh uh 3 dB uh uh cushion built into our noise model to account for extraneous noise sources that might occur due to forklifts and or uh dropping of equipment uh from time to time that wouldn't be random essentially.

Okay, but what but but it did not include the trailer drop because it it this the sound source says you back the trailer up and to the dock and then left the site.

That was our baseline study.

So that's right.

Okay, so we didn't include those other operations, and and then in the study, in the study we recommended, and and I was wanted to get some clarification on this as well.

In the study, it says it's highly recommended that the use of backup alarms be prohibited during the nighttime hours unless they're absolutely necessary.

So I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, but but the study suggests that you don't use backup alarms on tractor on the tractors um at nighttime hours because those would be too noisy, and yet I was looking in the conditions of approval.

Why wasn't there a condition of approval that says tractor trailers cannot back up during nighttime hours?

Is there a reason why we didn't include that in the conditions?

Commissioner Thenis, it we did explore that and look into seeing if that was something we could add as a condition.

However, in exploring it further, it was determined that it's an OSHA requirement in order to for safety reasons that we need to have those backup alarms, and as part of the language in the noise study, it talks that while it can be might maybe raise concerns, it didn't necessarily exceed the noise standard or the it didn't exceed the allowable noise levels listed in our municipal car.

For some reason it didn't actually say that it did or did not.

I I don't know why it missed that, uh, but it didn't.

You we could read it again, okay.

But it I believe that I I uh well, anyway, that's just my question because we're in the questions phase of this.

Um and okay, so staff recommends um Joanna, you said that they're not requesting any variances, but then staff is requiring the construction of new nine-foot walls uh around the perimeters.

And when you look at the um fences and walls ordinance that we have, it's a really nice ordinance.

I think it's a very appropriate ordinance, and it says that um fences and walls exceeding 42 inches, these walls have to be consistent with the building setback if they're above 42 inches, and that applies to all districts.

So now that we're building an we had an existing wall, which I thought, okay, we're gonna keep that existing five-foot wall, which I think now somebody said it measured seven feet.

Um, but now that we're building a new wall, the code says that you have to comply with the setbacks.

And when you go to the uh industrial development code, it says um setbacks.

I'm sorry, I want to be precise here.

Um minimum setbacks uh side yard industrial zero.

Rear zero.

Oops, wait, there's an E here.

What is the E say?

And the E says in all industrial districts, a 15-foot setback is required abutting the R district.

So if our fence and wall codes say we need to respect the building setback when we're exceeding 42 inches, then why wasn't the site plan updated to show uh when you look at the site plan, you've got um you've got parking spaces uh against the east property line, and you've got uh 26 drive aisle, and then you've got uh you know the landscape buffer, and there there that 15-foot does not appear to be considered.

Is there a reason that we didn't request the site plan to be redrafted um or or a request for a variance for the the wall height?

Because uh you I believe you just said there were no variance requested.

That's correct.

So in the industrial districts in the uh fencing and yard sections of the code, it states that nine foot high fences may be permitted um in the side and rear setbacks up to the front building line, which is why we're recommending it along the rear inside.

But it says that in the adjoining residential, that's 15 feet.

So you're saying you can build a nine-foot wall on the property line, you don't have to that that this code doesn't apply.

In addition to the nine-foot requirement, the code talks about uh non-residential use, abutting a uh residential use that an eight-foot high wall could be uh like uh proposed between them.

Well, I don't read it that way.

Uh maybe you can help clarify that and show it maybe we could show us how that code works because I I that's not what I'm reading.

Commissioner, it does say that the nine-foot wall can be in the side and rear setback.

So it does not have to be set back, it can be within the setback.

But but how does it how do we square that with the walls in all districts, though?

That the then this other code says, how does one code override the other one?

There's a special provision for industrial, anticipating that in the industrial zone that we've got uses that are gonna require taller walls than the typical six to eight feet.

So this was written specifically to provide for those industrial uses.

And I one more question.

Um I believe I believe that this does not apply to this project, but but uh Senate Bill 415 um requires uh a 50-foot setback to residential properties, but that that doesn't apply to this project, right?

Is that is can you explain why that doesn't apply it's my understanding, and Lem, I don't have the bill in front of me, but there are certain time frames that if it submitted within a certain time frame, it then would apply in this particular case.

That bill does not apply because this was submitted prior to when this was enacted.

Because the uh the the application was deemed complete uh before it was an active got enacted.

Okay, okay.

Okay, that's all I had.

Just uh follow up with you on page five of that SOMAS report in the method methodology, it does say there were no other no noise, easy for me to say noise sources such as fork list trailer drops or other uh noise generating outside activities, etc.

So just for your edification.

We'll we'll go on to Ms.

Palmer.

Okay.

Thank you for your answers on um noise.

I have a couple others.

Um is height, and I still need it clarified.

Um this is a question and a comment, but I'm particularly interested in the fact that the fascia is a full story, um, and that's only intended to occlude the AC units.

So I'm wondering why the design uh maybe just because it's modern, but why that why just um cladding was not used to allow open space rather than have the full um 40-foot height.

You want to know why the design was chosen?

Yeah, I want to I want to know um if that is common, it seems like a variance to me, uh because you're essentially at it that whole story is there, but it only exists to occlude the AC units.

Which is pretty I I assume you're referring to like the parapet?

Yes.

Yeah, which is very typical to screen mechanical equipment.

It'll usually be screened behind a parapet wall.

And that's that's pretty typical for industrial commercial buildings.

And they've it this because of the contemporary type of design, which is probably it's pretty simple.

Does that help answer your question?

Thank you.

Uh also I had a question that I could not get answered, and I could not find in documentation, but when the Walmart on Talbert was built, uh there was a lot of community input, and that occurred between 2000 and 2002, I believe.

So I just couldn't find any documents on it.

But one of the biggest concerns and uh one of mine with this project is this 24-7 operation, because that's a new condition for this neighborhood.

So uh can you tell me either whether we have any code limiting 24 uh 7 operation or what code was used to modify the Walmart construction site?

There is no code that limits 24 hour operations in the city.

There's multiple examples of industrial and commercial uses that operate 24 hours.

If they're adjacent to uh communities, residential communities, correct.

And using your Walmart example, one of the conditions that was added was to add an eight-foot high wall to take into account the deliveries that would be occurring 24 hours near residential.

So do do they actually operate 24 hours now?

I don't I don't think that they do.

Based on the information or how it was approved and when it was originally submitted, that's the what we have when it was originally submitted, but I don't think that was approved, or maybe the developer agreed to forego that.

Okay.

And then um the noise assessment.

Um is there a frequency of the DB uh throughout the 24-hour operation?

Is it a constant or are there peaks, or is it a mean average?

Uh the basis of the noise analysis has been uh the city code uh uh criterion of 50 dBA night time, which is based on an average hourly noise level.

So as a source can be fluctuating, obviously it does happen in real world, that's the way it is.

Um, but that's an average noise level over a uh hourly period.

And just to kind of help kind of tag on to that as well, you'll see that in the conditions it limits it from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

Because that is when our noise ordinance, I guess the quieter hours kick in.

And so, in order to ensure that we're consistent with our municipal code, we have those limitations, or we're suggesting those limitations to the site.

Okay, so I have two other minor related questions.

One is that frequency that runs from uh 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

Is that pretty normal guideline?

Uh that seems like six trucks per building per hour would be basically 12 trucks per hour.

Um is is that a normal frequency?

Based on what is being proposed in the side, I'll let the applicant kind of get it more into detail about the business operations.

This is considering the worst case scenario I guess what I'm asking is do we have other examples or any code that regulates that we have our noise ordinance and within our industrial section as well, it kind of references our city's noise ordinance that uses need to comply with that.

So if at any point uh whether it's two trucks, six trucks, whatever it is, if they're exceeding the noise ordinance, there is our requirements that limit it that use, then we have to take mitigation measures or look into it, or else it's considered a violation of the noise ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Thenish, you had another question.

And then I'll mine will be simple and more.

Yeah, so I I I would imagine you guys can just help me find this.

You know, I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing.

Um it says here in the uh for fences and yards, okay, uh item six.

In the industrial districts, nine-foot-high fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks, side and rear setbacks up to the front building line.

Okay, so in the side yard, you go up to where the front building line is, but it says in the industrial excuse, nine foot fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks.

You go to the land use controls, minimum setbacks, item E 15 feet.

I don't see where that this doesn't apply.

I uh you gotta help me.

Chair, or I'm sorry, uh Commissioner Thenis.

Um, so it's basically saying you could be within the setbacks, you don't have to be set back in the shock board.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Goldberg.

Just a just a few questions for staff.

You went over uh the fact that the uh applicant um mitigated some of the concerns on the original appeal.

Can you go to that slide real quick?

Because you mentioned uh Burns who actually brought it as an appeal, and then you mentioned okay, there was one that was about the uh there we go.

Okay.

So you said that the uh so the alliance of uh they withdrew their objection, safer with withdrew their objection, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, and then what was count and councilman Burns, what was he appealing as far as wall height?

Where which walls was he referring to and what which height was he trying to get after?

What which ones it wasn't clear in the appeal staff is assuming that considering that residential is to the south, that that's where that was the wall was.

Okay, fine.

And and so but did he give a specific like it shouldn't be 14, it should be 12?

That nothing specific, just no, it was just that it was considered too low.

Okay, all right.

So with that said, with my limited knowledge of construction, um when I go down the freeway and I look at the 605 and I look at that very high wall that protects the uh yards of those El Dorado park homes and everything else along that way.

I think to myself, thank goodness is as high as it is, because obviously it it kicks the noise back, correct?

Does that make sense?

Okay.

So it would it be safe to assume that a higher wall, as far as if I was in if I was actually someone that lived in the neighborhood next to it, that would be better for me as far as noise control than a lower wall.

Is that does that sound does that make sense?

And the other question I had, did I'm sorry, is that correct?

Yeah, it makes sense.

Okay, thank you.

And then the other only one other because I understand, believe me, when it comes to residents, we want this is you know, we're here to serve find that right balance between residential business and make sure this all functions.

That's what we're all here to try to do, I assume.

And with that said, this uh the um the lumber yard, was it required to use only the way there was there's a specific route that these trucks are gonna use now?

They're not going into residential, they're not they're restricted from going in and out anywhere but one entrance and exit, which sounds very reasonable, sounds like it was thought out to try to mitigate for the residents.

But my question to you is was the lumber yard same restrictions or or is it or is it much more loose with that with the existing use?

The previous use did not have as many conditions as this one does.

Okay, and then okay.

Nonetheless, they all took main access was from redondo, which is the industrial site.

Which was the right thing to do regardless whether it was I understand that.

So and then the other thing is so to be clear, this was an industrial site, and then the homes were built.

I don't know how long ago the homes were built.

I've assumed 60s or 70s, but so a portion of the homes were already there, they were built in the 60s, which is so if I can't let me see if I can pull it up.

So a portion of the homes that are here, thank you, were uh constructed already.

Okay.

South, which is Carnaby Lane, was was uh zoned industrial first.

Okay, this was zoned industrial, it was vacant.

Around early 70s, a the um industrial, the reliable lumber site requested their use, and then there was some sort of zone change to allow the continuation of single family residential south of the site a couple years later.

So the sir looking at when the reliable lumber um operation began is like 1974, the home immediately adjacent to it was finaled in 19 like later 70s, so after reliable had already begun operation.

So, in other words, if I was looking at that open house in 1977, I saw that there was an industrial site right across the way.

Is that correct?

There's definitely like some overlap happening at the same time, but definitely reliable started their operations first.

At least for a portion of the residents, Mr.

Clifford, you have another question?

Yeah, I have one more uh question on the uh the sound.

So I've I forgot my uh maybe you can help me with the physics lesson.

So if you have say a source with 40 decibels, and there's say there's two sources and the sound waves overlap, is the resultant gonna be larger than 40.

Uh two sources of equal sound energy produce a three dB higher than one source.

Okay.

So I'm looking at your methodology for the nine, it says here for the applicant, there will be one truck visit per hour during the evening and nighttime hours of 8 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

Is that correct?

Uh that's the the assumption that was made um initially on the sound study.

And then the conditions state that they can have up to what was it, six trucks per hour between 10 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

Is that correct?

With the current conditions as stated, that's correct.

So in other words, per building per building, correct.

Um so in other words, if if we if the maximum case happens, then the sound will be greater than what's stated in the report.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

I must add that uh sensitivity analysis was conducted, and that's how we came to the uh total allowable number of trucks uh to stay within uh city code Hi there.

Um reading into the uh total of these this project, it's my understanding that there's 95 truck trip loads in a 24 hour period, but 85 of those are relegated between 7 a.m.

and 7 p.m.

Is that correct?

Correct, and that would be deducted from the nighttime operations.

Okay, so that that essentially would be only 10 overnight, then right?

That's the oops, that's the assumption.

So if we we were to do that based on Mr.

Clifford's question, if this project was approved, could we put a condition that no more than one truck an hour over the over the overnight 12-hour period could be you know you know what I'm saying, that they wouldn't have three two or three trucks running at the same time overnight?

Does that make sense?

I think so.

I think it would be a question that we would want to talk to the applicant about.

Okay.

Um the other question I had was uh for the sound.

I'm assuming with my building background, the higher the wall, the more it would displace the sound.

Is that true?

Uh that's generally true.

However, there is a limitation to that, in that uh after a certain height, it doesn't matter how how tall it is.

Okay, that would be heights of uh over 20 feet or so.

Right.

And then just really quick to kind of piggyback on that and kind of kind of address Commissioner Goldberg's comment.

In addition to the proposed perimeter wall, there is an existing U-shaped enclosure that for the docks as the as the wells were for the trucks to back up into, it is approximately the same height as the rest of the building.

So you're talking about an up to 40 foot high tall building that has this U-shaped area that's the center truck court area.

So they it's the length of the truck uh bed.

So that is serving as a additional wall to protect for Dodge Sound and but also aesthetics in addition to the suggested nine-foot high perimeter wall.

Okay.

The other the other question I I have it's kind of in total of three areas.

Are there any on-site tanks?

Anything mitigated with that or not?

No, there was in the report, there is disclosure of it.

There was previously an underground take, and I'll let the applicant kind of explain further if you'd like, but that has been removed.

It has been removed.

And did fire department oversee that removal?

I mean, was that a pro or I I don't know what the process is in Huntington Beach.

So typically underground storage tanks are reviewed by the county.

So that would be under their purview.

Uh we do work hand in hand when it comes to like the overall review of soil investigations, but as far as that just the tank pools themselves, it would be the county.

Okay.

The other question related to that is that I know that the uh railroad track that is there, that that's gonna remain in place.

It's not gonna be removed.

It's not being removed.

It's a separate parcel owned by a separate property owner.

What will be removed are the um operation?

It will the reliable lumber site was the only stop for the train.

If the reliable lumber site goes away, there is no need for the train to continue coming into the city.

So reliable would not have any uh legal right to do anything with that, then correct?

That isn't it's a separate owner.

Okay.

Um and the other issue is that I I noticed in the uh reading of this case, this project that it was on oil property, but at the same time it stated that there were no oil wells.

Is that is that a true story?

Trusting you guys on this.

Uh the there is there's uh an explanation where there are nearby oil sites, so I think within 500 feet.

However, on this particular site, there are none.

Okay.

Good enough.

Anyone else have any questions?

Go to the order.

Okay, with no further questions.

We would now like to open up the public hearing.

Do we have any speakers?

So we have currently 13 speakers, including one speaker who has a donation of time, so for a total of nine minutes.

I'm gonna call down the first half.

Please line up at each microphone.

We do have that middle microphone available for any disabled access needs.

Matthew Biggs.

Alan Fenstermacher.

I do apologize for any uh misspeaking.

Irene Contreras Garcia.

Ronald Wolfe.

Shelby.

And then I have Taylor, who has a donation of time from from Mornez uh Blades and uh Heyman for a total of nine minutes.

Please state your name prior to speaking.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name's Matthew Biggs.

Uh good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your time and consideration tonight.

Again, my name is Matthew Biggs.

I'm here on behalf of Triple H properties and the development team for the proposed project at 7600 Redondo Circle, Huntington Beach.

First, I'd like to acknowledge and thank city staff for the significant time and effort they've put into reviewing this project.

We have carefully reviewed the staff report findings, conditions of approval, and mitigated measures, and we appreciate the professionalism and due diligence that has gone into this process.

From the beginning, our team has approached this project thoughtfully and responsibly.

We understand the importance of cabad compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

We have worked to design the project that minimizes impacts while delivering a high quality industrial development consisting with the site's zoning and planning objectives.

The project has been specifically designed to reduce operational and community impacts.

For example, the loading docks are oriented inward towards the interior of the site rather than towards the adjacent residences.

The site plan truck circulation, building placement, screening walls, and sound attenuation measures were intentionally incorporated to mis minimize noise and improve functionality.

Since the appeal process began, we have continued to work collaboratively collaboratively with the city.

And on April 16th, we entered into a signed agreement with SAFER and the Southern California District of Laborers Union.

We believe those agreements reflect a constructive solutions-oriented path forward.

In addition, the commission would like if they would like to incorporate the submitted mitigation measures into the conditional use permit, we are supportive of that as well.

We're competitive committed to compliance with those conditions.

Thanks again for your time and consideration tonight.

Thank you.

Please stick around.

Yeah, of course.

Okay, thank you.

Please let me step up each microphone.

Go and step up.

We have two microphones.

You can step up to them if you're waiting to speak.

Yes, please.

He was next, I think.

Doesn't matter who's next, just line up behind the microphones.

You can speak out of order.

My name is Ron Wolf.

I live um six houses down in Carnaby Lane and have been there for 32 years.

Our house backs up to the light industrial area and the rotor tracks behind us.

We've had vandalism from the railroad tracks, but we also get noise from the light industrial area behind us as well.

So laying in bed listening to stuff at night happen over there, even though it's not supposed to happen after 11 o'clock or 11 o'clock.

It does happen.

And that neighborhood is so quiet at night, that sound is gonna carry much further than it would during the day, probably when that um sound study was done.

So at night it's gonna have a lot of sound carrying capability of that noise in the neighborhood.

So I would respectfully um request that there would be no overnight deliveries or um pickup of trucks or any big semis coming in and dropping off trailers or picking up trailers between the hours of 10 8 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

in the morning due to that sound, and like you said, is you can build a higher wall, but it's still gonna carry throughout.

That might help the houses right in front, but it won't help the houses a little bit deeper in the neighborhood that will be hearing those beeps and stuff, because you can't turn up those, turn off those you know, beepers and on those trucks, and it's required by OSHA, I think you guys had said.

So it's gonna be loud, it's gonna happen, and as we lay in our beds trying to go to bed at night and sleep at night to get up and work in the morning, we're gonna be disrupted throughout the night.

So we request, or I would request that that would be uh strong consideration of you guys as you um make your decision tonight.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker.

Good evening, uh Chair and Commissioners.

My name's Alan Fenstermacher.

I'm with Rutan and Tucker.

I'm uh land use counsel for the applicant.

Just while I'll keep this brief.

Just want to let everybody know I was here if there are any questions.

Uh the appeal's been withdrawn at this point on sequel grounds, but in in some, you know, the MND, the mitigated negative declarations extremely complete.

Um the third party experts did a fantastic job, as did city staff.

Um, we feel it's fully legally defensible.

Obviously, you know, again, the appeal's been withdrawn on that grounds.

Um, but to the extent there's any legal questions that come up and you'd like to hear from the applicant's attorney, I'll I'll be here and available.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Please stick around.

We may have those questions later.

Next speaker, please.

Hi there, thanks for having me.

I'm Taylor.

Um, I can tell you care by the questions you've been asking, so I also want to thank you for that and also for your time.

Um I'm here first putting my glasses on so I can see.

Um, but I'm here to formally request that the planning commission vacate the mitigated negative declaration and require a full environmental impact report.

Um under CEQA in EIR is mandatory because we do have a fair argument based on the city's own data.

Um at this point, we are a full cup when it comes to the health argument, right?

Um, our pollution cup is already full.

Cal enviro screen ranks this area, our neighborhood, and the 89th to 92nd percentile for asthma.

I'm an asthmatic myself.

Um, prior to living in the neighborhood, but still have it.

The MND uses broad averages that ignore the pre-compromised health.

And those neighbors that were referred to as multi-family homes are actually senior living homes, which we know that seniors are more compromised uh with their respiratory systems and all else.

Um we would like the city to lower the threshold of significance for new diesel emissions, um particulate matter, dust, fugitive dust, any and all of that that comes from construction, demolition.

Um this is a community that a community that is already in the top 16 percent for toxic exhaust exposure.

True fact.

Uh additionally, in phase two study uh that was done by a partner, boring B32 was found um to have PC in the groundwater at a hundred micrograms per liter.

That's 20 times the legal safety limit directly on the property line that's shared with the senior living uh area, which is Oakview in Emerald Cove.

The report again uses industrial standards that are thousands of times less protective than the residential standards required for our seniors and the children at Paddy's preschool, the children in our neighborhood, the loads of children that come and play at the park playgrounds, that come and practice soccer and football and all else there.

Please find a place to land.

Thank you so much.

A place to land.

Yes, uh, otherwise we only have three minutes per I have nine minutes.

Oh, you have nine?

She has time donated by two different individuals.

She does have nine minutes.

I misunderstood.

You're my first nine minutes.

It's okay.

I'm gonna land on minute four right now.

I think that's a good idea.

You're doing good.

Let me know when you get to nine.

No, I will.

Stay tuned.

Um, you know, uh child toxicity and peak noise.

Children are 10 times more sensitive to carcinogens like the arsenic that was found on site.

Um, watering the dirt truly is not a guarantee for children that are near the site, that are again at Paddy's preschool that are at the boys and girls club and could that's really not too far just down the street, but should there be a fugitive dust, they would be affected as would the rest of the neighborhood.

Minute five.

Um we feel that there's inadequate analysis of a high health burden, much like there were questions being spoken to regarding the noise level and the adequacy of the noise level that was tested.

We uh also feel that the toxicity levels being tested are truly inadequate and biased for an industrial area and not for the high concern of the residential area that is bordering uh in many different areas.

Um there's again diesel exhaust risk.

There is uh toxic releases.

In fact, this neighborhood is in the 77th to 78th percentile for toxic releases, which indicates that this community is already exposed to industrial chemicals at much higher rates than the state average.

This is a critical point because of the legacy toxins.

I think you heard a little bit about there not being much studies prior to 1970 when the lumber yard was you know took over that land.

It's true, that's the case.

Um, and there are legacy toxins of PCE and BTEX chemicals, which I know we're probably all aware of, this being an oil town that it is.

Um, but they're found on the project site.

And the city's report, it uses broad, broad averages that ignore the pre-compromised health of local residents in a neighborhood where respiratory issues are already at crisis levels.

Any increase in exhaust, any increase in particulate matter, any increase in fugitive dust that's toxic from methane, from PCE, from uh BTEX chemicals, from chloroform, all of which have been found there, cannot be dismissed as less than significant.

Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna move forward a bit.

Um can they be a hundred percent mitigated?

No.

No, they can't, and that's just the fact.

Um mitigation means management according to the regulatory thresholds, but that interferes with sensitive receptors.

So significant versus less than significant, the M and D format is only used if the city believes that all significant impacts can be brought below a certain legal threshold.

If an impact like air toxicity can be brought below that line, an EIR is required.

The residual risks, even with successful mitigation, trace amounts of contaminants may remain in soil.

Or is it that these residual risks are still significant to the community's health?

They are okay.

We can't say that this is gonna be mitigated.

We can't say that there isn't gonna be an emergency with the level of chemicals, the amount of chemicals and the high toxicity of those chemicals.

We are all at increased risk.

And I'm sure with the list of chemicals that I just rattled off, if you heard about those in your neighborhood, you would also want there to be further measures taken to protect the people that you care about in your neighborhood, to protect your family, your children, your property, right?

Right.

So this is the reason why we want an EIR.

We're not against development.

We're not against the company that wants to build.

We just want it to be done in a way that respects our community in a way that respects our city in a way that respects us as people who give to the community, hopefully.

And that's why I'm here today to talk about the health and to talk about the fact that we deserve that level of environmental justice.

Um to look after our health, and I hope you will hear that, and I hope you will consider it.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm gonna call ahead and call I'm gonna go ahead and call the rest of the speakers down, please.

As a reminder, Irene Contreras Garcia, Shelby, Bill Copy, Steve Melinda, I'm sorry, uh Daniel Tossa, Alice Feich, Dale Feich, Jerry Vinland, Caesar Lamas, and Larry Bustos.

Please come down, please line up behind each microphone, and please state your name prior to speaking.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Irene Contreras Garcia.

I'm a fourth generation local.

I grew up in the corner of Garfield in Delaware.

The city took our family home by in mint domain.

And when I got married the first time, I moved to this neighborhood.

I raised my four children there, and I've lived there over 60 years.

It was all fields before Terry Park wasn't even there.

And it's like the first gentleman mentioned, it it was a quiet neighborhood.

And the lumber yard, yes, it makes noise, but this is gonna be something of an atrocity.

I mean, why do you need 40 foot buildings?

Two of them.

It's just there's nothing around that's 40 foot buildings.

You know, on the reports, there's a report, there's two different reports, and they need to be re reconciled because they're saying there's gonna be this many trucks, and the other report says there's gonna be this many trucks.

Well, why do we need why do we need deliveries in in the middle of the night?

Why do we need deliveries after six o'clock?

You know, we live there.

We don't want the noise pollution, we don't need it.

And and you know, who's gonna enforce whatever you're saying?

The emergency exit is not to be used.

Who's gonna enforce that if they do use it?

Who's gonna enforce the trucks if they come in one after the other and and they're not scheduled to come in?

Who's gonna enforce that?

What are we gonna do?

Call the police department and say, hey, this is going on, we can't sleep.

It's you need to think about us, the community that lives there that has lived there.

This is ridiculous to put two 40-foot buildings.

I I mean, it's not there's nothing around at that height.

We don't need it.

We don't need all those deliveries.

We don't need all those trucks.

And and I ask you respectfully to please think about our community.

And and and I want to know why these reports that we can read are there's not there's different amounts of of numbers, they don't coincide.

They they need to be reconciled, reconciled, I'm sorry.

And then the the report for the noise level.

Well, what time of day did they do the noise level report in the morning, afternoon, night, in the middle of the day?

How many trucks is was this is it gonna be the same amount, or the wick did they do the noise report for the amount of of uh trucks that are gonna be coming into this site, this development, and and did they consider two 40-foot buildings, and the wall.

We need to have a 12-foot wall, at least to buffer if we can't, if this gets approved, we need to buffer the noise and the dust and the lights.

So thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

That's the push is not good.

Uh Steve Melinda, I live in the track south of Taylor, and my deed says house built 1974.

So we were built at the same time, I guess, as the lumber yard.

So there was no there they coincide.

So as far as who was first, it was at the same time.

Um, so I drove around the neighborhood that um surrounding industrial areas on the west and to the north, and I didn't see any business that runs a 24-hour overnight anything.

It's the normal business.

So you guys have you guys have approved businesses that operate during the day.

So this business should do the same for noise.

The other thing is, and when you look at the the building layout of the two docks facing each other, so it's looks good, looks like it mitigates the noise, but it also creates a funnel where, and that's north south facing.

So, and that would go right into the tailor facing or the south facing uh residential area where I live and other people.

I'm not that close to it, but I hear the noise that's west of us during the day.

I get home at work, and those guys are grinding away.

I can hear that noise.

So if you guys, if the if these developers are telling you that the noise are you stuck doing these fancy studies or telling us there's gonna be no noise at night, I think you're not I think you're right.

So we would ask that this development, whatever you whatever happens there that is done and for daytime activity only.

Okay, that's my request.

Um that's it, that's all I have.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

My name is Daniel Tassa.

I live about 300 feet to the southeast of the property.

Um, I'm not on the front lines, but uh I can tell you right now, I can imagine laying in my bed three o'clock at night, listening to 12 backup horns all night long.

12 backup horns an hour.

I can't imagine.

Uh potentially missing project details, supporting authority, CEQA, adequate uh project description, operational detail.

The ISMND may be deficient to the extent it is not provide sufficient specificity regarding the project's operational characteristics, including hours of operation, shift schedules, employee counts, delivery frequence, loading activity, equipment use, staging areas, and construction sequencing.

CEQA requires a project description that is adequate to permit meaningful environmental review, including the project's technical environmental characteristics, the hours of operation and noise generating activities.

The documents should clearly identify business hours, delivery windows, truck idling periods, loading, unloading times, and nighttime or early morning operations, because those details directly affect noise traffic and neighborhood compatibility and analysis.

Truck circulation loading and on-site logistics.

This IS MND should identify truck access routes, turning movements, loading dock locations, staging areas, and the number of loading and unloading events per day.

If the project intensifies non-residential use or changes parking demand, those operational details are also relevant under the city's parking and loading standards.

Parking supply and demand assumptions.

The analysis should disclose the basis for employee parking, customer parking, truck parking, truck trips, any overflow or off-site parking assumptions where the project changes occupancy, intensity, or parking demand.

The city zoning standards require a documented parking and loading analysis, construction duration, phasing, and work hours.

The environmental document should identify the duration of the demolition grading, the building paving, and finished work along the construction hours and uh truck scheduling so that quality noise and traffic effects can be evaluated against actual project intensity.

This ISMND appears to lack sufficient project specific details to support a fully informed environmental determination.

In particular, the documents should be more clearly disclosed.

The project's operational characteristics, including hours of operations, shift schedules, employee counts, delivery frequency, and truck circulation, loading and unloading activity, construction duration, and other uh site-specific logistics necessary to evaluate traffic noise and air quality and cumulative impacts under CEQA guidelines section one five.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name's Bill Cuppy.

I live on Carnaby, uh about three houses down from the development.

I'm in real estate.

I know highest and best use.

I know working together with the developers, making it happen.

40 foot next residential is kind of outlandish.

The existing industrial buildings average 24 to 28 feet.

Current construction is typically 30 foot with a four-foot paraffit, takes it to 34 feet.

I heard last time we were here it was 32 feet with a four-foot parapet, take it to 36 feet.

So 40 foot is a bit outlandish.

Hours of operation.

10 p.m.

to 6 a.m.

or 7 a.m.

I've seen a couple of different times.

Six trucks per hour per building.

That's a truck every five minutes during quiet time.

Again, OSHA rules.

They're not gonna stop those backup alarms.

It's kind of funny how they're doing all these warehouse things, um, activities undercover.

You can't back those trucks up undercover.

If you look at the way the buildings are constructed, the noise is going to reflect through the alley that the two buildings create directly north and unfortunately directly south into the residential neighborhood.

Heights of walls do matter.

Materials on the walls do matter.

That's why you see the different textures and heights on the freeway sound walls.

A nine to fourteen-foot wall is reasonable.

The Walmart that was mentioned, that was 2002.

That wall is 12 to 14 feet high, depending on which side you measure it at because of the loading docks.

More recently, the smart and final on Edinger that backs to the residential there.

They don't do any overnight.

They're not even allowed to have their trucks idling overnight, let alone pulling in and backing up.

We gotta do something about noise.

Backup alarms are not going to stop at a wall, pretty much no matter what.

Probably the only reasonable thing to keep the comp community quiet at night is no trucks.

10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

Everybody saying redondo is an industrial street.

Have you driven down that street during the day when two trucks are on that road?

Uh uh, you're pulling over.

Two trucks cannot pass side by side if there's any cars in the parking.

Drive it and see.

Again, we'd like to see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name is Dale Feich.

I live on Taylor Drive.

I'm right in the middle of this the whole complex.

Uh there is five houses on that block.

This being directly affected by it.

Two of them are up for sale already.

That's not good.

Um really concerned about the the sound, and everybody's talking about the same thing.

Uh I just noticed just recently I go to the park every day with my dog, and I'm looking at the wall in front of the uh Windwood Cove complex, and I'm counting the blocks, and I'm going 12 four, that's 14 feet tall.

We were at it, oh so I can't say we were directed by several of the uh council people or planners that 12 feet or nine feet was the limit.

That's a limit of Henkton Beach's walls.

As you can see, right close to the right by the park, it's 14 feet.

So that's not a very good sign.

Um let's see, what else did I have?

Uh the existing walls, it sounds like now the uh one on front of Taylor Drive.

Uh I measured it depending on where you stand.

Uh it goes from uh seven feet to six and a half feet.

So it depends, it's wavy back there.

Um let's see.

It's also in in uh needs of some repair, there's cracking in some of those portions of the walls.

They put pile asters in there a few years back because of the wall was tipping and and wanting to come over.

Um so it's it's uh needs to be repaired, besides probably taken down.

Hours of operation, 24 hours a day is ridiculous right next to a residential homes.

It's just doesn't make any sense.

Um we can count the trucks, but backing up diesel, 18-wheelers, there's gonna be noise no matter what they do.

Um that's about all I had to say.

Everybody's thank you guys for being diligent.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Okay.

Good job, Joe.

All right, I'm Jerry Villan.

I've lived there in uh that community since 1974.

That's 50 years.

Uh thank you for listening to me.

My big thing is diesel engine exhaust.

It poses severe risk to human animals and children.

And life life inspectancy and exp for a long-term exposure, cancer, respiratory illness, cardiovascular damage, neurological effects.

And we are close to the bottom of the developed countries and life expectancy.

In the developed countries of the world, we're at the bottom.

That's inframortality, avoidable deaths, and life expectancy.

This really helps that.

This project does not compare with all the small businesses on the Gothard corridor.

They're all small.

Look around, look around where it is.

All those buildings there, they're not 40 feet high.

And they develop a lot of businesses there.

I'm not against development.

That's good for the country.

But our community does not deserve this.

And would you approve this in your own backyard?

And if it is built.

That's the end of my question.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

All of you should have gotten an email packet with about 12 pages of information.

State your name, please.

Sorry?

State your name.

Um, sort of as a rebuttal to the staff report that is um incomplete.

So um you've already pointed out some inconsistencies in in the reports, but we've done a lot of research, and there are a lot of inconsistencies across the board.

And it feels a lot to me like the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game.

So I think having a proper sound study done with a comparable company would help in this case.

So right now there is a similar building off of um Bolsa.

It is the Huntington Gateway project that has a similar footprint as this building.

I think a proper sound study at that building would be adequate because they are having the same similar operation.

This is a speculative project, so we can have up to four tenants on this property.

So, you know, limiting hours for one tenant might not work for another tenant, right?

But we need to know about the sound and the types of um noise that's gonna be coming from these buildings.

So doing a proper sound study at a at a place that's actually has the same sort of noise, I think is appropriate.

Um again, the there are so many inconsistencies as far as recol reconciling dock counts, aligning um setbacks and building placements, like it's not even listed on here, and now we're being told there's gonna be a four-foot planter and a um sidewalk put in on Taylor.

Well, that's new.

That's not listed anywhere, so we need to kind of learn about that.

Um, what else?

We have truck circulation, noise.

Now there's a three decibel variant.

Yeah, that's not gonna work when you're dealing with um the different types of trucks that are supposed to be coming in and out of this type of a building or uh structure.

Uh distribution center, is it a warehouse, a distribution center, a fulfillment center?

What's gonna keep it from getting changed from a distribution center to a fulfillment center without the proper sound studies as well, because that's gonna increase traffic.

Um the parking hours um right now, if you go down that street, a redondo circle, there are so many employee cars that the trucks can hardly even get through.

It becomes a one-way off of COVAX, and they have to go all the way around through down uh redondo circle.

A lot of accidents have happened on that street, and the increase in traffic, the um industrial people over there are really concerned.

There's also the fact that some of those um industrial tenants are not getting long-term leases renewed, so they are not being told why, but they are now month to month, and these are companies that usually sign five to ten year leases.

So there's something else going on with that property.

Um, air monitoring and emissions.

We have um some toxic soil, toxic gas in the soil, and we need some air monitoring for the residents in the vicinity.

Um, we also want to address the security and the potential other problems.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Caesar Lomas and Larry Bustos, if you would please come down.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Alice Feich, and I've been asked to read a statement for the Terry Park community, which is what we are.

But really quick, I just want to say my house is on Taylor Drive directly across bedrooms face that property.

That's one big reason we want a wall because of the sound, the privacy, just everything.

I mean, these are our homes.

Okay.

The Terry Park community is made up of citizens, people, residents, inhabitants, and stakeholders living in the area surrounding Terry Park and Huntington Beach.

In regards to the Slumber Yard Construction Redevelopment Project, we are also known to contain sensitive receptors.

We are deeply concerned about the quality of life in our community.

We are concerned that the mitigated negative declaration violates the California Environmental Equality Act because we see that there may be a significant adverse impact to our local community with people of all ages.

Up until now, there has been a lack of transparency and community engagement.

With the ever-changing status and guidelines, there must be a middle ground to set a safe precedent for future buildings of this type within multiple zones in Huntington Beach.

Community voices and concerns should not be ignored.

There are multiple inconsistent areas of data across all reporting that need to be reconciled before making a decision today.

Some of the adverse impacts are related to hazardous materials, air quality, noise, and pollution from increased traffic, as well as no agreement for sound barriers and landscaping for current needs, air monitoring, etc.

The MD appears to rely on unclear deferred mitigation measures for a potential impact to the soil, air, water, and environment, which is prohibited under CEQA.

We want some of these known issues to be addressed in real time while the landowner is figuring out how best to use his property moving forward.

These toxins are considered a public nuisance under HBMC 844010.

In no way are we trying to stop forward progress in our city.

However, this project, as presented, does not meet the needs or the goals of the local community.

This complex project should require full environmental impact report, taking into consideration all the sensitive receptors nearby and future tenant types to take into account for proper studies.

And one more thing we have a diesel motor home.

The air brakes are loud, the diesel engines are loud, and like they said, you cannot take that backup sound away.

Please think of us.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Uh good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Cesar Lamas.

I am an eight-year active member with the Labor's International Union of North America.

Um I'm also a representative in regards to some of my brothers and sisters that couldn't be here today because they're working essentially either out of the county or out of the city, having to commute way longer than they should have.

It's jobs like these that give us the opportunity to go ahead and jump into our car, drive 10, 15, 20 minutes away from home, make it back within that same hour, a little bit of traffic, never heard nobody right.

But yet again, making it back home on time, make sure that we got our families ready for dinner and stuff like that.

In regards to projects like these, they also open up the doorway and the opportunities for the apprenticeship programs that we have in regards to having young members within the community, within your community, jump into the workforce and then start their careers with us.

It also operates it also offers opportunities to veterans as well, too, in our program with the helmets of hard hats.

It also gives us opportunity to put veterans, uh, people through the second chance program to go ahead and get back to work, get back on their feet, and then also create a pension, create health care benefits, give us the opportunity to put food on the table to these families as a certain part to it too.

We're part of your constituents as well, too.

And then regards to the project itself.

It looks like the developers putting in the modern contemporary architecture behind it to make sure that it has that buffer as well too to kind of mitigate in between the city and everybody as well, too.

So there's a lot that's going into it, and we come in full support.

We come in full support for staff's recommendations.

Also, I got to commend them.

It's it's a big part of it.

And thank you for the time.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, planning commissioners and staff.

My name is Larry Bustos, and I'm a 21-year member of the labor's union, and I'm here to speak tonight in strong support of this project.

This proposal takes an outdated lumber yard and turns it into a cleaner, modern, and far more productive site for Huntington Beach.

Instead of leaving an aging lumber yard with limited value, this redevelopment brings in new investment and a much more maintained look for the city.

The community expects for its residents and workers.

Also, to reemphasize what my brother Caesar said, this project projects like this create critical apprenticeship pathways into our union.

I have two younger brothers.

They are both veterans, both of wartime, and they did go through our apprenticeship program, and now they are very successful journeymen running big jobs and are able to take care of their family with dignity.

So I have seen it firsthand.

This project has already cleared its environmental reviews.

So tonight, this is a choice between encouraging responsible reinvestment or leaving older properties stuck in the past.

We feel this is a smart long-term win for the community and our local workers, and we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any more speakers?

We have no one else signed up to speak.

We will now close the public hearing.

Planning commissioners will now deliberate this item.

I'll start on my right, Mr.

Clifford.

I'd like to share my my thoughts on it.

I want to thank everyone for coming out.

It was uh good to meet and talk to some of the residents last Thursday at the community meeting.

Um understand your concerns.

Um my thoughts are, you know, I'm not necessarily opposed to the project.

Um it's it is zone industrial, it has been there for some time.

I do believe it does modernize um the area.

However, um I do believe the as I pointed out earlier, the sound study is not where it needs to be.

And I, you know, for to allow that many trucks overnight, I think is to be honest, kind of ridiculous, especially when the sound study said it only tested at one truck with one truck per hour when there could be potentially be 12 trucks per hour.

So I would support this with um, you know, a condition to I don't know, something we can discuss, but to reduce the number of trucks per night up to maybe zero.

I think that's something we need to consider.

Um so there's there's that point.

Um yeah, I have a couple questions for the the applicant.

I mean, do we want to do that?

Bring them down now.

Yeah, we could get the applicant and the legal representative down, that would be great.

So we can have questions.

First off, yeah, thank you for for coming and uh discussing your project, and thank you for being so flexible and working with the city through the process.

We appreciate it.

Can we get the site plan up while we're discussing this, please?

Go ahead.

Yeah, just uh couple questions regarding the current operation because I want to kind of compare and contrast the current versus potential future.

Um I think staff mentioned the current hours of operation.

Uh what are those?

But the lumber yard?

Uh I don't have those offhand.

You're referring to the reliable lumber site, the existing ones.

Correct.

They are, I believe, up to 6 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

Okay, not weekends.

No.

What time is it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

What's the start time?

What's the uh yeah, what's the start time?

Do we know?

We keep hearing 6 p.m.

but I don't is it start at 6 a.m.

or 8 a.m.

I don't have the information, but I believe it starts from six to six.

I have a I have a comment.

I believe the last thing that they posted was 6 30 a.m.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the the current operation is it how many truck trips per day are currently coming into that facility?

Do we know?

Hi there.

Hi there, David Hickman.

So it's actually tell us what your relation is to the uh project.

I'm the owner.

Or one of the owners, a family owner.

Uh we operate from seven to seven, basically.

So um and we do have the ability to operate on the weekends.

I just wanted to clear that up.

Thank you.

And you were asking about truck trips per day?

Currently, correct.

Oh I know it's probably variable, but it is variable.

Um the last probably 30.

The last report that we have, it it varies very pretty widely.

The last report that we have, it it varies very pretty widely season to season, you know, week to week, month to month.

Uh we saw truck trips as high as 75 and then as low as 25 to 30 per day.

Yeah.

We staged trailers, so there it's at seven 7 a.m.

the trucks come in and grab them and pull them out.

But if I could add, it's a different operation that's than what's going to be there in the future.

Uh the nature of their business is slightly different than warehouse distribution operation or manufacturing for that instance as well.

Right.

So I point I was gonna add I'm gonna try to address the um the air emissions concerns.

So my um so I know if current operations you're you know 25 to 75 trucks per day, it sounds like but you also have I know operating equipment forklifts moving lumber around so far.

How many how many pieces of equipment do you have?

So roughly we probably have uh I'm trying to count them now.

13, I believe forklifts on site, and somewhere in the neighborhood of seven or eight trucks that are our trucks that go in and out, plus outside trucks that come in, which is probably triple that.

So it sounds like from seven to seven, roughly, there's a lot of equipment moving around regularly producing emissions.

So you so yeah, I wanted to point that out because to address the emissions concerned it it it's I wouldn't say it's a wash, but um the based on this study, the proposed is let me bring this up real quick.

It's a proposal about 95 truck trips per day.

That's what's estimated with the new development.

Correct.

And it sounds like before there was 25 to 75 or 50 plus all the hours, 12 hours of you know, a dozen or so forklifts.

Yeah, that's yeah, it's just maximum allowable trucks per day at the site.

Right.

Um I have a question.

Uh next question is kind of for staff.

Uh the size of the wall, I know we was proposed to potentially have bringing up to nine feet.

What's is can we go higher than nine feet?

Is that allowable?

The code allows and for industrial areas along within the uh side and rear setback up to nine feet.

If anybody wanted to request anything beyond that, it would require a conditional use permit.

So it would be a separate entitlement and request that would have to be done.

So that's not something we could do tonight.

It you would it would require a separate uh request, a different entitlement, discretionary permit.

So it's not you know, by right, nine feet is the max.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Babino.

Yeah, for now.

Thanks.

So I actually had that same question about the height of the walls, so thank you for answering that.

Um I heard a lot of kind of conflicting information about trucks at night.

So I thought that I read it was only one per hour.

No, just uh no, that was that was just the noise study.

Um what what they were what the uh allowable trucks per night is six trucks per building per hour.

Okay, I thought that was just for during the day.

So that's 24 hours.

We can have 12 trucks basically coming in and out of there.

Is that correct?

Limitation is 12 trucks total six per building.

24-7 though in the evening.

In the evening, there's limitations for up to six trucks per building.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

So we got the hours of operation and the wall.

I think that that's it for me.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thenis.

Um would would you consider um uh an adjustment to this site plan?

I I well I I'm not happy with the sound study, and I I really think we need to do a better job on the sound study, and I think it's really just coming, and for me, it's coming down to the sound study.

And when you look at the site plan, there's a 80 feet opening between the backs of the parking stalls, right?

Uh of the um in between the two buildings at the southern portion of the buildings.

And if you brought those buildings closer together, okay, you could shrink the buildings and you know, move that now.

You could move the building walls to the north, and that would provide the same square footage, and then you could have plenty of room to have a better landscape set back.

Um you could we could build a taller wall on a berm so that we'd only see nine feet of the wall, and that I think would do a lot better job um keeping the sound out of the neighborhood.

You know, if you brought those building walls together, you wouldn't lose any square footage, and and it would provide a smaller opening to allow the sound to pass through with a taller wall with with more landscaping.

Would you be willing to make that kind of change to your site plan?

Thank you for the recommendation.

The the only risk that I see with that is the truck flow operations um coming out of the back side of the building.

So the you know, to give you a little background on you know the Huntington Beach industrial market.

I'm a broker, been a broker or industrial real estate broker for over 14 years.

We designed these buildings intentionally so we could right size the buildings for any tenant that might need it, and that includes cut being able to cut the buildings in half and include you know, have you know anywhere from two to four tenants at the building?

The issue that I see with bringing the buildings closer together is the truck flow.

The trucks are not going to be able to pull out appropriately and circulate around the exterior of the site.

Um so I I don't see that as a feasible change.

Well it's 80 feet wide.

I mean your your driveway is 40 feet wide.

I don't know why you couldn't live with you know you you've got a big wide open area there that you know so yeah.

I mean, we worked through several different iterations of this design to get it to where it is now, and this is the design that's most you know operationally efficient.

We you know, we have to be able to lease the properties at the end of the day, and so we work through a lot of iterations.

We went through, you know, we went through architects, we went through truck flow analysis, we went through, we spoke to the brokerage community on what's going to actually be able to be leased, and this was the final iteration that we found that was going to work best for this project.

I don't understand how that would keep the truck circulating.

I mean, you've got a truck circulating around the building in a 26-foot wide drive aisle, and somehow they've got to navigate these corners around the building, which I think they can only do in the daytime hours according to the condition.

That's correct.

So I don't know why making the space between the two buildings narrower would would create a problem.

That way you wouldn't lose any square footage, and you could increase the landscape setbone on the south property line, which I still don't understand why.

I mean this lot basically has two fronts, but all right, you guys that's your your job to interpret the codes.

But I I believe that wall should be set back with with landscaping to attenuate the sound and and um I I believe a more adequate sound study really should be performed.

And I think you'll find you're gonna need that kind of measures to you know be a good neighbor.

I I I think this your project needs to make a change to the site plan.

I I believe your trucks will still be able to circulate around the building.

If they can make that turn around the east side of the building, they can make that turn around the center of the building, and that'll that'll free up enough space to provide a reasonable landscape buffer on the south side of the sound wall, either the north side or the south side, actually.

But you know, it would look better if it were on the south side.

So okay.

Okay.

Ms.

Palmer.

Okay.

So first of all, um I agree with uh the other commissioners who brought up the need for a better sound study and uh especially the slight reconfiguration of this site, because I think when you build something, you can build to worst-case scenario, but for people looking for this type of space, what we've done here, I believe, is look at something that is going to attract the most egregious.

So my main thing would be I personally don't think we should have 24 hours of operation.

I don't see any reason to have trucks there all night.

And uh again, I was also privy to the Walmart um deliberations back in the day, and any nearby neighborhood, trucks coming all times of the night is definitely disruption.

So another one that hasn't been brought up, but is um important to me is the height.

Uh, I think 40 feet is just kind of crazy, and it also provides an absolute barrier to open air.

And one of the things you'll notice if you're in that neighborhood is you don't see the top of the lumber yard, and there is open sky there, and the 40 feet would occlate that.

When I talk to you, again, I think building design is a little subjective.

I don't find the fascia particularly beautiful on the fourth story, but that's up to everybody else.

But it does occlude that much sky.

And so the reasoning was that it camouflages the air conditioners.

Air conditioners used to be either on the ground or in a uh they could be at any level with a with a uh a cutout.

Uh so now I think they're on the roof to optimize your floor space.

Um that's my guess.

But um, I don't see why you can't clad them and leave some open air up there.

And the other reason you gave me was so people don't fall off the roof.

Now I don't know who's going to be on the roof.

Um, maybe an AC repairman, but if they're planning to put a roof deck up on there, that's something else again.

But I don't see any need for um a parapet or whatever that wall is called to keep her from falling off the roof.

My question is, can that be mitigated?

So can we bring the can we bring the height down?

And if the only thing that's higher than 38 feet or 36 feet is those air conditioners to clad them separately and not build a whole story around them.

So the entire building is not going to be 40 feet tall.

The building has 32-foot ceilings, so a 32-foot clear height with about three to four foot parapet walls, and there's going to be a grade, a slight grade on site, and they're keeping the buildings flat and consistent.

So for an architectural nature, they want the buildings to look flat and consistent.

So the buildings are going to range from anywhere from 36 to 40 feet high at the highest point, you know, 36 feet at the lowest point.

Can you show me the 40 feet?

We don't we don't have the architectural drawings.

I don't know if they have sides.

So the actual ceiling height is probably the level of that band that's correct.

Well no, the the ceiling height's probably gonna be a little bit higher than that, where the trusses sit in the roof, so the metal, the metal scaffolding that holds up the roof is gonna be the bottom part of that's gonna be 32 feet.

You have about two feet for the scaffolding and then about eight inches for the roof.

So, and then you have three to four-foot parapet walls on top of that.

So we're gonna be I don't know if it gives you measurements on that.

And were any designs looked at that didn't include 36 all the way around or 40 at in places?

Uh minimum ceiling height that you're gonna get on any new building is 32 feet, and that's that's lower than we'd like to do.

We we actually would like to do uh 36 feet, but you know, with the height limitations of 40 feet, we found it hard to go higher than that.

That's what I'm asking.

Can you bring it down to 36 feet?

The total building height?

Yes.

No, we cannot.

I I just think it's very inconsistent with the neighborhood to have a 40-foot building right there.

Thank you.

All we're we're we're trying to build a feasible project at the end of the day.

This has to be leaseable.

Um you don't want us to build the buildings and them sit vacant.

In today's standards, a you know, 28-foot tall or 30-foot tall building is not industry standard.

Uh 32-foot clear is is what makes this project feasible.

And we're adhering to all the the city's development codes and development standards.

There's the letter of the law and there's the spirit of the law.

And sometimes things that are inconsistent have a big impact on the surrounding area.

So once a building is built to the absolute limits of the code, then everything after that uses that as the standard, and you end up with walls and walls of unnecessarily high block buildings.

That's just my opinion.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Uh Mr.

Goldberg.

I apologize.

I I I'm just, and I hate to belie belabor this particular point, but just so I'm clear that I'm not I didn't hear things wrong.

It's a nine-foot wall, but isn't it on top of like a five or six foot some sort of um retaining wall?

Am I correct?

So it is 40.

There's a current wall there at 14 feet, right?

I did hear that number, and there's an existing wall.

Is that correct?

There's an existing wall, so portions of the site kind of it's lower on redondo, higher on Taylor.

So you'll start seeing there the retaining wall is larger on the north side versus the south side along Taylor.

And is the design, just to be clear, is it designed to maintain that?

So basically there will be a 14-foot high at that, whatever's currently 14 feet, it'll remain 14 feet.

Is that correct?

If there's an existing retaining wall to protect the cut or the dirt, then the code does allow that to uh be topped with whatever is permitted if I write.

Okay, thank you.

And then I do have a question for you too, Jones.

Well, I mean, I I'm not I'm gonna I'm gonna ask the obvious question, right?

Obviously, um you want to get the most out of your entitlements because that gets you your best price for everything as far as usage goes, but is there any room at all to try to reduce any of the um nighttime activity to a level that might at least give give throw the council or because it's probably gonna go to council and get it appealed if this doesn't go here anyway, one way or the other.

But is there any is there anything at all that can be done to reduce the amount of traffic at night?

I guess I'm saying we could we could settle on a total number of trucks per night, um, but we would still we wouldn't want to limit the amount of trucks coming in per hour, but we would limit you know to a total number that's feasible for you know or works for the council and for us okay.

Just it's just all right.

So there's okay.

That I mean that look that I mean that like I said, I mean this is a okay.

I I'll save my comments until when we're ready to vote, so that's fine.

That's all the questions, thank you.

Okay, so um, did you did we did you have a public uh meeting for the neighborhood when you guys did this project?

Yes, we did.

And how many people attended that?

Uh estimation, probably about 40.

Okay, because some people were asking questions that I think would have been answered at that public meeting, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, um let me see my other question.

It and just for both of you, my understanding is that there's 95 truck load uh a day in a 24 hour period, of which 85 were supposed to be between 7 a.m.

and 7 p.m.

Is that am I am I understanding that correctly?

Currently, not currently, uh the allowable for this this allowable wasn't this in our conditions?

Correct.

Yes, correct.

So if we do if we do overnight six at a time times twelve, don't we get way past 10 more?

Uh you could, yeah.

Yeah, so I mean it it so can you speak clearly black and white on that, not make that gray at all for us?

Just on the the total number of trucks that are coming to the site per day.

Um so the the maximal allowable obviously 95, and that's based off the allowable trip numbers that the city set forth for us, right?

Um, do I think that we're gonna get 85 trucks in a any given night?

I think that's yeah, not at night, not at night.

These people want to sleep.

I'm just I'm just saying that that many trucks are gonna come in at night.

No, I don't.

Uh most of the deliveries are gonna come during the day.

So those were the assumptions that we initially thought, however, looking at going through the noise, the noise study, and looking and accounting for a nine-foot high perimeter wall, what was permitted, what would be still comply and be within compliance with our noise ordinance was up to six building, six excuse me, six trucks per building in the evening.

So the assumption is for the project that this is what we're having.

However, looking at uh the noise modeling and the perimeters at nine feet, this is what we can all go up to.

So can can you give me the overall number in a 24-hour period based on your numbers?

Based on the noise study, then it would be what we accounted for during the day, and then what's what is it 12 times between 10 and 7?

So I I need to do the I need a calculator.

So that's what 12 times six times twelve.

So yes, and so we so again that's a lot.

But based on the modeling, and I'll let Frashad, you know, if you want to add to it, when we looked at it and we took into account all of the additional uh modeling and the nine-foot perimeter while we looked at the worst case scenario, and this is what was determined.

That's correct.

So um the noise study assumed uh that there would be a certain number of daytime operations, and the leftover from the 95 total would be during the night.

So that was one scenario that was looked at, and then we looked at a maximum per hour scenario for night time uh to determine whether the nighttime city code would be exceeded.

Okay, thank you.

So we had a public meeting, we have a count on that.

Um I guess one of my questions for the issues of noise abatement at nights, you would for this for staff we would call police department for something late.

If it's after hours be police department during the day, it would be code enforcement.

Thank you.

Um I had another question.

There's a uh large building adjacent to this property.

Do we know what the height of that building is?

I took a look at it in per city records, it's approximately 36 feet in height.

Well, COVID.

That's immediately adjacent to this project.

So it's a property immediately west.

I measured it.

This is the property east of the of the site, it's at 36 feet based on the city record.

Yeah.

We'll go by the city records.

Um did the did the uh neighbors that did come to that meeting, did they have access to that noise study?

The current one?

The noise study is in the MD.

It's in the MND.

Did they have access to the MND?

Uh I believe it's public record.

Okay.

All right.

All right, that's it for that's it for me.

Um other questions?

Yeah, another question.

Um again, what's the Romani?

What's the max height uh for building in the residential area?

For for example, the red single family next door, they could go up to 35 feet.

Okay.

Um again, my thoughts, yeah.

I follow up on a couple of the other comments.

Um I'm not opposed to this uh project.

Um, I think it's kind of a it's kind of a run-of-the-mill warehouse project.

I know when cities develop, one of the forgotten things is often distribution warehousing, make sure you know companies have inventory that helps support livelihoods of the citizens.

So again, I support it, but again, I think we need to put restrictions on on the nighttime truck traffic.

So I think we should just anyone else.

Do we have a motion?

Well we can if you want to.

I have a question.

Um based on what Commissioner Clifford just asked.

Um we aren't asking, or we're not getting any feedback on any limitations.

So we would just be voting on the initial uh we'd just be voting on the appeal.

Okay.

Without any additional conditions.

Okay, thank you.

It's yes or no on the appeal, right?

That's really what it is.

Either we deny the appeal or we or we we uh port it.

I would go off of the motion that is in the staff report.

Uh so if you are recommending approval and adding a condition, it would be to make a motion in that positive uh manner.

Otherwise, a denial would deny the project.

That would be suggested.

The question for the applicant, you mentioned X number of trucks.

That's less than what's proposed for a condition, not per hour, but you know, for the entirety of the night.

Can you give us a number that you think would be um we have nowhere putting me on the spot here?

Um we make motion uh you know we we would be fine with half that number.

Um if we were if we were gonna do three trucks per building, we can I'll do it.

Three trucks per building, we can do that.

Let me do it.

So cut it in half, basically, is that what you're saying?

Yeah, we can make that feasible from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

Correct.

Yeah, 12 to 20.

Well, that's enough.

We're not gonna do that, guys.

Yeah, please.

That's not why we're here.

Um what about a different approach?

Maybe zero trucks between like midnight and four a.m.

The limit, so what we have found when there's any type of hour of operation restrictions on properties like this, they're just impossible to lease.

You know, is it is it something that we see very often trucks coming from 12 to 4 a.m.

No, but the hour of operation restrictions make it hard for you to get a bank loan and they make it hard for you to just lease in general.

The restrictions just don't work with with uh public companies or any of the large tenants coming in there.

If there's any restrictions on the property, they pass when they come to come when they come to look at leasing them.

Um do I think that there's gonna be you know a large amount of trucks coming in at night?

I don't go look at the Huntington Gateway project.

If you look at that project, if you go drive that right after this, you're gonna see a handful of trucks there.

Uh but at the same time, they didn't have any use restrictions on their property.

And if we have those, we're gonna be passed over and look, you know, they're gonna go look at Huntington Gateway as opposed to this project.

This is a direct competitor to that.

Um so in terms of feasibility of the project, we need to have uh an allotted amount of trucks overnight, whether that's you know, three per building, four per building, we need to have some amount of trucks that's allowed there.

Is it likely that they're gonna come all night?

No, it's not.

The the likely tenant that's gonna come into this project is a manufacturer and they work traditional hours.

But we just can't have the use restrictions in place.

Can I get a motion?

I would like to make a motion to continue um this hearing uh until uh we come back with a more adequate sound study that provides um a more realistic baseline um source, and that the site plan is redesigned to provide a better buffer and a taller wall to mitigate what I believe we'll find with a new sound study and and and come back with an appropriate sound study.

Because uh I I I this is what we do.

We're very familiar with this market, and having use restrictions like that are I mean, you having a restriction is good, but a complete restriction.

I I know these buildings don't get leased, and we've you know, but but I would like to propose that we continue this to um provide a more adequate sound study.

I'll second that first got a first and a second.

Yeah, I I believe the site plan modifications should be simple.

I think they can provide um a much taller sound wall and a much larger landscape setback without losing any building square footage.

I think it's a simple change.

Um I I think they can do it.

Before we vote, I would ask uh just for legal.

Um, if are we allowed to add any other conditions in addition to the sound study?

Well, you're you're making a motion to continue it, right?

That's the motion on the floor.

Okay.

So for for more information now, you can direct staff that those that's the information you would like to come back.

Okay.

Well, you can't you're not really conditioning the project at this point.

You're making the motion to continue.

So the uh vote's ready.

Yeah, could you clarify the motion again for me, please?

Postponing it.

Yeah.

Uh continue this hearing request.

Um an updated stown study should with using a more realistic um uh sound source, you know, not just one trade track tractor trailer, uh maybe a one-hour period of time at a similar warehouse, and then you mitigate to that sound, which would include trailer drops, which were excluded from this proposal, and I think then you'll find that then adjust the site plan accordingly to comply with those sound requirements because it's important what we build, right?

We can make these restrictions, but if we build a setback, we can't go back and undo it.

Once the building's built, uh it's it's done.

And I think if we make that request, we'll they'll find that that yep, we we need we need an additional setback to provide landscaping and all these tools that are um acoustic engineer has in his uh palette that can solve these problems, and and I think that needs to happen.

I just like to before we take the final vote.

I I understand you're wanting to do another sound study, and I have no, I'm not necessarily against another sound study, but I think at this point, after hearing what we've heard from both the community and the representative, I would rather see us either vote up or down on the measure and allow them to have an opportunity to move forward to an appeal or whatever they want to do.

That's just my opinion.

I just feel like I've I've looked at all this information and I understand you've got you've got a much better background on design of of property of commercial properties, but I'm telling you, based on what I'm looking at, it looks like they really did a pretty darn good job of at least trying to mitigate and work with the city and work with the with the sound study.

They had a an appeal that was withdrawn because they obviously came through.

So that's just my thing.

Is you know, we're delay these guys till when?

Till till next uh till November.

I mean, I I'm just saying that I I've got enough information to vote up or down, whether you whether this gets passed or not, I think they should have an opportunity to move forward.

And if the if a sound studies uh requested by the council or or someone above us, that that's fine too.

But that's just my thoughts.

I mean, uh for me, uh, you know, it's zone commercial, right?

Um it meets all the city ordinances, and it's not high density development, which was looked into, right?

I don't know how many homes could have been built on that property.

Um, but it could have been 600 homes, and I don't know that that's a better use for the property.

So um we can continue with the motion.

If I may add just one more, um, you know, I would first ask the applicant to see if they would even reconsider a design redesign, but it would take additional staff time to evaluate compliance with the code if they do a redesign.

So for example, the parking lot, it might affect the number of parking spaces required for the building, depending on the square footage that gets lost or or added um to reconfigure the site.

So just just to consider if this motion does move forward.

Well, I guess I'll have a little bit of input here.

I I think that what we're looking for uh is a win-win in taking from something that's going on outside inside, and uh, you know, nothing that you do here is gonna be perfect.

I think that's been mentioned.

So you know, in in trying to mitigate all of the issues that are out there, like it's been said, this is a well thought out, well-designed project.

No, it's not perfect.

I haven't seen a perfect in two years, I haven't seen a perfect project yet.

So when we're looking for a win-win, this is it.

And it's not popular.

Uh and and no, I I I can't say that um I think that we're gonna make this thing to everybody's liking.

I just don't think that's out there in this particular property, but I like the fact that this is a 51-year-old property that's probably in decline.

And um, you know, there's other issues that are out there, they're gonna be mitigated through a good project that's gonna capture a lot more problems than it creates.

And uh, you know, like uh Commissioner Goldberg said, I'd rather vote up or down because this isn't the last we're gonna hear about this.

Uh and again, what are we gonna do with the next time?

Are we gonna add more conditions next time?

So that's how these go.

Um, and I'm you know, that's where I'm at.

We're gonna vote on the motion, huh?

You got a motion out there?

Motion at hand is to to do a sound continue to do a sound update.

The sound study study.

So the current motion was to do a uh new sound study and a redesign site plan.

I'm currently waiting on Commissioner Theonis and Commissioner Clifford.

Commissioner Clifford, is your voting thing working on you?

It's it's not okay.

Can you let me know what uh A or Yay na or abstain?

Nay.

And okay.

So we have four nays, two yes, the nays are Bush, Babanau, Clifford, and Goldberg.

Uh Commissioner McGee is absent, so the motion fails.

Can I have another motion?

Mr.

Gulliberg.

Yes, I'd like a motion to approve uh this project as presented.

Well second.

I'd like to vote on that.

Well, wait a minute.

Didn't we get an agreement to reduce the uh truck trips at night?

I thought we had that on the table.

We were gonna forget that.

But I think we were the conditions the conditions.

Can you well then okay?

Before I before I would you like to amend I like to amend my motion to include the mitigation that the developer had offered regarding the amount of trucks at night.

I still second.

Well, there need I think there needs to be a specific number.

I would I would say for me.

Can we stipulate that?

I think what was being discussed was a 50% reduction in the nighttime uh operation.

And that would be my motion.

So it that would be our motion.

I just want to hear from the uh is that right?

A 50% reduction in night time truck traffic.

That's correct.

That's great.

That's my mo that is my motion.

I like motion.

That is my second.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second.

Can I comment?

Discussion.

Yeah, I don't see why.

I would just I would I would take it further.

I mean, I it was taken anyway you want.

He said 50%.

That's what they're we've got to do.

You made the motion I know, but it's it's uh it was it's it was 12 times it was a nine hour period.

That's right.

The project has to be that's still a lot.

I got I'm gonna say I get it, I get it.

I heard I also heard the applicant mention something about you know three three per building per night.

No, three per building per hour per hour per hour.

Yeah, this is a good look.

Take the 50 percent.

If you don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it.

It's 50 percent.

We got to do that.

Come on, guys.

The walls are let's go ahead and vote on this gentleman.

The walls are in the ma'am.

It's just sitting.

Still waiting on Commissioners Thenis and Palmer and Commissioner Clifford, what is your vote?

Nay.

Okay.

Commissioner Palmer.

Okay.

So we have three ayes, three nays, one abstention with Commissioners Thenis, Palmer, and Clifford voting no.

So motion fails.

I'll make a motion to approve with a quarter.

I think I think it needs I think that's still a lot of trucks.

I mean, it's it's you're the applicant says it's not gonna be.

So when we talk about a quarter, we're talking about from 10 a.m.

to or 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m., correct?

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Just the nighttime trucks.

Again, we're talking about the feasibility of this project at the end of the day.

We need this project to be able to be leasable.

Shh, let's see, let's keep order, guys.

I so I've been doing this for 14 years, and having a use restriction in place like this for 25% of the total trucks is not gonna work, period.

I mean, uh we can sell around a 50% reduction at three trucks per building.

But at you know, 25% of that, that's just it's not feasible.

It's not gonna work.

We want this building to be a successful project, we want it to be leasable, we want it to bring in economic activity for the city, and the only way that that's gonna happen is through allowing us to have you know a 50% reduction is already a pretty big concession on our part, and we've I feel like that's more than enough.

Yeah, we have a remarkable we've closed the public comment.

We're we're trying to make a motion here.

So anyway, I Commissioner Clifford and uh who's been addressing this, I'm just gonna speak again and say the same thing.

I think that the fact that they were willing to to do a 50 percent reduction after basically meeting all the requirements of this project and knowing how much has gone into it.

I mean, we can we can go ahead and we can let this keep dying.

Uh or you know, you can get appealed without the 50 percent, and although I would assume the council is watching, so they would make sure they got at least that 50 percent in.

But anyway, that's just my thoughts.

But uh I'm gonna I made my motion, it failed.

So if someone else wants to make a motion, uh I'm certainly willing to entertain it.

Substitute motion.

Well, I I don't know if it's a substitute motion, right?

I I'm gonna try again, I think with the 50 percent reduction.

I mean, the project has to be feasible, right?

Or it's not gonna, you know, it's not gonna succeed.

And if the project doesn't succeed, then we don't get tax dollars, right?

Which I think the tax dollars are important to the city.

I think everybody's pretty aware that you know we need all the money we can get.

And so building something that's not feasible doesn't make any sense to me.

So I'll make the motion again with a with a 50 percent reduction.

Let me ask a question.

Yes, sir.

Because you're the broker, what's the vacancy rate right now?

It's pretty high, isn't it?

With the vacancy rate on in Huntington Beach or in the U.S.

County in this area, federal.

Uh I can give you two different facts.

I can give you the general vacancy rate of the vacancy rate for class A buildings.

Uh the general vacancy rate is about 7.7 percent.

So availability rate is a little bit lower than that.

Are are you are you ready to start construction on this project the minute we give you approvals?

Not tomorrow.

Okay.

So with that in mind, okay, with that is with that in with commissioners with that in mind to continue it to adjust the site plan to provide a better sound attenuation, which is why we're trying to reduce the number of trucks.

That is something we can do.

We we we will you can't appeal the continuation.

And they can go back to the drawing board.

That gives us the power to get this site plan drawn and redrafted something.

And and we could hustle it through staff.

I mean, just moving a wall 10 feet or something, and you know, I'm sure you can get some data quick enough and we can be right back here and and provide a better sound study, and we could do our job to make the site plan change.

Otherwise, we get to do nothing.

How long has this been going on?

I know, yeah.

I'm gonna just say this to Commissioner.

No, no, Commissioner Then's I'm gonna be honest, I'm very high respect for you and your and your opinion.

So I'm not I don't want to discount it all.

I would tell you that if we're gonna if we're gonna go and delay this project and have staff have to start spending more time and energy on it and and all wait and everything else.

I think that's a decision for council.

I don't think that's really I I think that's oh above and beyond our purview as far as I'm concerned.

I know what we're here to do, and I think that our you know I'm saying to you, let the council do that.

Let them let us put it forward either negative, either fail or positive.

We're we're the dead heat.

I don't at this point I can vote no just so we can get this get them on their way and they can go to the council and let them deal with it.

But I'm telling you that I don't think it's a good idea for us to do that.

That's that's my belief.

And again, I I would like to just say basically on top of that, you know, this is not gonna be a perfect project no matter how long you lengthen it.

It's not gonna be to anybody's satisfaction.

I think that's pretty clear.

The idea, the idea is are we gonna continue to grind these guys down and keep adding things because that's what we're doing, and we're like you're saying, we're adding it to staff.

We're really only adding to the frustration, even for the people who live out there, because again, this will be appealed, and it's gonna go our job really, I think is to keep it simple.

Does it meet does it meet the code requirements as uh applied for?

And if it does, then we need to vote for it with conditions if merited, but we need to get it to the next level.

Keep it simple, the project meets the zoning code as you laid out in the staff report, correct?

So we're we're we're kind of like a one-legged duck here.

We're just gonna go in circles.

Actually, it but the code says, the code says within 300 feet of residential properties that there's there's uh a a uh conditional use permit required, and the purpose of the conditional use permit is to study the effects of sound and traffic to the adjacent residential properties.

And we have a sound study that does not include dropping trailers and everything else and the mitigation measures that come along with that.

And so they did a mitigated negative declaration, but they just didn't mitigate it because they they left out important parts of this this movement in the motion, and if we can just do the continuance now, you won't have to wait for uh to get it on the agenda and get it appealed and go to through city council, and they can just go back to the drawing board, do a little bit better job on the sound study, provide a buffer, and I think actually, if you're concerned about time, I believe if we make that decision now, the wheels will get rolling on a lot faster.

Commissioner Thenis is there a number of trucks per night or uh you know a ratio of trucks per night or a percentage reduction that would put you in favor of this project or or make the the council happy tonight, the the commission happy tonight?

No, I agree with your statement.

You making restrictions on the operations is not gonna it's not gonna help you.

I believe that it you need to be a better neighbor.

My clients, I don't think any of my clients who build industrial buildings, and I'm probably gonna get kicked out of NAOP for I was on the legislative affairs committee for 10 years fighting laws like this AB 415, and and they've developed good neighbor policies for a good reason.

A lot of them are overreaching.

I believe a lot of them are way overreaching, but you you didn't do a good we didn't do a good sound study.

There's no doubt of my mind about that.

And and we need to provide a little bit better buffer so that in the future when somebody comes to the city and says, hey, you know, we want to understand this rule, we we want to apply for uh uh uh a variance in our conditional use permit, and everybody forgets why.

I I want the sound wall to be adequate.

We we build 14-foot screen walls in most of our industrial buildings.

They're all on almost every one of my projects.

So there's a boat.

I'm trying.

Okay.

So uh you requested that we approve this to get this project moved along.

However, while on the face, it was very simple.

On the face, it meant most of the code uh guidelines.

Well except for some of that meeting code missed data that may not meet the code.

So I spent a lot of time on this.

I met with the neighborhood twice.

I met with the developers.

Everybody's working very hard to make this a successful project.

I don't believe it makes any sense to throw it back to the council.

I don't think we need to worry about uh the staff will work too hard if we have conditions on it.

I think we want to get the best project built, and I think everybody needs to make concessions.

I did not see concessions from the developer, but I do think they intend to make it a good project.

I do see a lot of concerns from the neighbors that they'd like no project there at all.

So yes, nobody's gonna be a hundred percent happy.

Nobody's gonna be a hundred percent happy.

But right now, I think we're at a place where we are close to seeing something that would work well for the city, be amenable to the neighbors, and still be profitable for the developer and the owner, but I don't think we're there yet, so that's why I'm not ready to approve as well.

Okay, so I guess the last comment I'll make on this, and then I want to motion I don't want us to get in the habit of being the designers.

That that's the bottom line.

When I say keep it simple, I'm not saying approve it.

It's gonna be appealed.

I I'm very clear about this.

If we've taken this long, I guarantee you somebody will appeal this.

What I don't want to get in the habit of doing is designing projects, and that's what we're doing.

I mean, we we we seem to get off kilter on that.

We're here to make keep it simple.

Does it meet what was you know submitted and applied for?

And if there's extenuating things uh that you don't agree with, you know, that was that was approved by staff, right?

And it's ameniable, it meets code, it meets the minimum.

But we're not necessarily 100 percent in an agreement.

We're never gonna be 100 percent.

That the sound study actually actually provides the answers that we think we need to approve this project.

We think there are holes in the sound study.

Great.

Okay, so let's can we get another motion here somewhere?

One on the table, I believe.

And I will second, and I will say if we have if no one's been swayed, I may go abstentions so that this thing gets denied so we can move it on to the council.

That's where I'm at right now.

So unless unless anyone's been moved by the 50 percent reduction at nighttime traffic, which I think is a very reasonable deal.

Very reasonable, very reasonable.

I if I I understand that I know that my colleagues have every reason to believe that their position is also very valid, so I I do appreciate their position.

But I'm I've second the motion to approve it, and um I guess I guess we'll I guess we'll vote.

Then you can't abstain.

Oh, I can't abstain if I'm the second or okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, then I'm sorry, then I'll have to withdraw my second.

Commission, if I may just add, you know, this is a conditional use permit.

So if there are violations on this EP, you know, during operation, those um violations could be taken into consideration for potential fravocation if the uses in the future have concerns.

The other thing to consider is that in the industrial area or even citywide, we don't have requirements to limit hours of operation.

So the fact that they are going through a conditional use permit to have some conditions in place helps protect the community and address some of those concerns.

If concerns you know do prove to be the case um after construction, post-construction with these new uses, there is still the opportunity where the community, you know, can um file requests to reconsider and we could look at potential revocation if for some reason there are numerous violations on their conditional use permit it's a bad day for Dom not to show up.

Yeah, it's a great, great day for Mr.

McGee to be here.

Not that we know how we would vote, but you know, exactly.

So can I second uh the motion?

What's the motion was to approve it?

We just re we introduced the same motion because we still made it.

We still made it so they reintroduced the same with a 50 percent.

I mean, maybe someone was swayed, maybe someone was one way or the other.

So I'm just making the same motion with a 50 percent reduction in overnight traffic.

Um that to approve it as is otherwise as is.

Okay, and Chair Bush is the one who seconds.

Yes, yes.

We can ask Mr.

Clifford how he's voting.

Don't take his vote.

I was I was waiting to get to where everybody else has filled out.

Commission uh Chair Bush, I'm waiting on you.

Uh not on the screen.

Commissioner Goldberg, and then make a few comments.

Um, based on yeah, what was said, and you know, I we're pretty close to where I wanted to be.

I wanted it to minimize the sound issue.

Um, but based on what you know, hearing from staff, whatever said I'll I'll vote uh yes on this.

Okay.

Um I it's not up on my screen, but I'm voting yes.

Okay.

So we have four eyes.

The nays are Commissioner Thenis and Commissioner Palmer.

Commissioner McGee is absent.

Motion carries.

The planning commission's action is final unless the appeal is filed to the city council within 10 calendar days.

An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and the fee, and she'll be filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days.

We do have an additional item, so if you could please be quiet on your way out, we would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda is the public hearing on zoning map amendment number 19-001, the tentative track map number 16295, conditional use permit number 19-003, Pierce and Green Condos.

Planning commissioners, please state your disclosures regarding this item.

Please start on my right.

Mr.

Clifford.

Nothing to disclose.

I spoke with uh Mayor Pro Tem Twining.

I spoke with uh Councilman Um Williams.

Oh boy.

I spoke with three residents.

I spoke with the applicant, I spoke with Councilman Gruell, I spoke with with uh Mayor McKeon, and I spoke with uh a commission.

I'm sorry, Councilman uh uh Chad Williams as well.

And I spoke with uh Councilman Chad Williams.

That's it.

Mr.

Clifford, I didn't hear you.

It was your yeah, nothing to disclose.

Thank you.

Staff, may we please have the staff report?

Principal Planner Joanna Cortez will give the presentation.

Hi, it's still me.

Uh the item before you is located at 4861 Pierce Drive.

It's located at the northwest corner of Pierce Drive and Green Lane.

The general plan and zoning designation is RM, known as residential medium density.

The property is surrounded by uh predominantly multi-family with some single family residential and weeder park directly to the west.

The uh project request before you is a zoning map amendment to rescind precise plan of street alignment number 80-1 to remove existing paper streets over existing private easements.

The other request is a tentative track map to permit a one-lot subdivision on an approximately 1.23 acre lot for condominium purposes, and then the final portion of the request is a conditional use permit to allow for the development of 18 attached three-story residential condominiums at a uh 33 feet in height, approximately 33 feet in height.

The construction also of a six-foot six-inch high wall within the 15-foot front yard setback for private yard purposes along Pierce Drive for two of the 18 units.

And there is a graphic right here showing the elevation of the two units with the proposed um back private open space.

Um the first trying to dive in into the portion of the request, which is the zoning map amendment.

There's a graphic here showing the existing uh conditions with the existing paper streets.

You have hideaway circle.

This right here is the project site.

We have hideaway circle, uh, which is an existing paper street, Sandy Drive, and uh it's a non, it's an unnamed paper street.

And the precise plan of street alignment for this area was intended to plan private streets over existing easements that currently lie within these paper streets.

And it doesn't show it here, but this area including Weeder Park is comprised of multiple small encyclopedia lots.

And the intent back then was around to provide access to these interior lots along these streets.

In 1981, after recommendation from the planning commission at that time, the city council approved the plan to require larger 33 foot wide street sections along these streets or these easements right here.

So ultimately, these were kind of put in place to create proper streets that you would typically see in most neighborhoods.

Since the approval of that precise plan of street alignment in 1981, this area has not been developed.

If you look at the site and I'll show some pictures, it's pretty undeveloped out there.

And the majority of is now under ownership of one property owner who is the applicant today.

The applicant proposes to consolidate the majority of the smaller parcels to create a one-lot subdivision with private streets and public easements to the city for vehicular access.

The 33-foot wide private streets of the past precise plan of street alignment would make much of the property undevelopable with unnecessarily wide streets that would only dead end here to Weeder Park along the west.

So we're sending the precise plan of street alignment would make the property or this area more developable.

And the proposed track map, which is right here.

And so I kind of try to color coordinate it to show the hideaway circle becoming the alley.

Now a portion of that easement is gone.

They would share an easement here, but that easement would basically go away to allow for this development.

And then finally, this would become this lower or southern uh paper street would now become a private road that traverses through the project to provide access in from Green Lane out of what would now become an alley.

Again, the two unremaining undeveloped lots that exist here on the site would still have the access through this existing easement and what now would become a private road.

So here's a view of the project site and its existing conditions.

This is the corner of Pierce and Green.

This is an existing single family that's there at the corner where the two units with the proposed fence would be located at.

Then we have here a view from Green Lane.

This is the southern easement or the private road that will be traversing through the site.

And then this is the view from what will is called hideaway circle, but will ultimately become an alley.

And as you can see, the rest of the property is vacant.

And it was presented once again earlier this year in March 26th.

It was recommended with suggested conditions of approval.

And some of those modifications that were suggested by the design review board was to incorporate additional enhancements to the design of the homes, including reducing the height of the backyard walls for the two homes facing Pierce Drive to 60 inches or five feet, less than what was requested by the applicant, but taller than staff's recommendation, which is 44 inches.

Staff is recommending 44.

The applicant is recommending 6 feet 6 inches, and the design review board ultimately approved 5 feet or 60 inches.

And their reasoning for it was for safety purposes to allow a taller private backyard that faces a busy street or a more traveled street, and to allow the property owners to fully maximize their private open space area and to allow features such as a hot tub, which would require a five-foot block wall per building and safety code.

So that was the rationale behind design review boards recommendation.

Here we have the site plan.

We have Pierce Drive here for the south.

We have the two units with the proposed backyard that encroaches into the front yard setback.

We have Green Lane here to the east, and once again we have a private road that traverses through the site.

We have a common paseo area that goes through the middle.

And you can see all the units, the rest of the units are attached in different formations.

One building has two attached units, one building has four.

One other building has five attached units, and finally, one building has seven attached units, which is the largest one here in the middle.

The 18 three-story residential condominium project complies with the requirements of the RM zoning district of the Huntington Beach zoning and subdivision ordinance.

The with the exception of the request for the two walls along Pierce.

The um it is subject to a conditional use permit, and it's being presented today.

The project complies with front, side and rear setbacks, height, minimum parking requirements, and open space.

The decks located on the third floor provide additional private open space and are a common feature in new development.

They're designed to be oriented from other units.

They are set back as well along the um areas above the second floor.

And they complement the streamline design of the project while complying with high requirements.

Furthermore, the project proposes two car garages for each unit, seven uncovered spaces, and nine open guest spaces.

Nine of the units have uh dry two car driveways right here.

You can kind of see it to provide additional um parking.

Um those don't count towards a meeting code because tandem parking is not allowed.

And then again, the project compliant proposes a contemporary design with building volumes that are articulated with variation.

Here we have the green lane elevation plan.

So the units that face the streets have more enhanced materials and landscaping.

Then we have the and the other green lane elevation, and then once again we have the Pierce Drive elevation, which has the um private open space that encroaches into the front yard setback.

Staff has reviewed it and determined that the project complies with existing land use pattern of the area.

Once again, it's surrounded by multiple uh multi-family in the area, ranging from two to three stories with similar features.

It's compatible with other areas surrounding the site in terms of land use scale and character.

It improves an existing underutilized and vacant parcel of land, and it conveys a high level of quality and a character that incorporates high quality materials and design.

Therefore, staff is recommending approval of zoning map number 19-001, tentative track map number 16295, and conditional use permit number 19-003, based on the fact that the project will not generate significant environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

It's consistent with the general plan and zoning designation of RM or residential medium density.

It complies with the provisions of the Huntington uh beach zoning and subdivision ordinance with exception of the use the request for the walls, and it's compatible with surrounding uses with respect to heights, setbacks, on-site parking and architecture, as well as the city's urban design guidelines for multifamily residential.

And finally, the project contributes to the city's housing stock, including um contributing towards the city's affordable housing um requirement as required, and it assists in achieving the city's overall housing goals.

Therefore, this concludes staff's presentation.

I have the applicant here, and staff is present along with the rest of our other departments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cortez.

Commissioner.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioners.

I just want a quick clarify couple clarifications.

That's okay.

I was gonna start on my right, but we'll start love and war.

We'll start on our left.

All right, so I just wanted to make sure I was clear.

So this went before the design review board.

They have some suggestions.

They gave it to the developer or the proposed developer, and then they came back and they basically met their standard and it and it was approved by the design uh committee.

Is that correct?

When it originally went to the design review board, thank you.

It met it met we got um suggestions from the board.

However, there was some redesigns that happened afterwards, and we felt that prior to coming to the planning commission, it should go back to the design review board to ensure that we got their comments for the modification of the parking layout as well as the wall.

Okay, and the and I did meet with the developer and they kind of presented the project.

Um, my comments about that when we go to vote.

But um, they mentioned the really the biggest thing that we're approving here is that there's we have a 44-inch requirement for uh front yard fencing, and because of the the houses turned backwards where the backyards basically facing this pierce street that at 44 inches, one not to mention the lack of security.

That the biggest thing is that they can't have any water features and they and they have um because of the it's a fire code, it's a it's a safety code.

It's it's a code uh that we have that if it doesn't go at least 60 inches or five feet, there's no no no bueno on that.

Is that correct?

Partly.

So what they're requesting is to use the front yard setback to help comply with their uh required um private open space.

Historically, multiple developments throughout the city have used that and propose up to 44 inches, is what we historically have, which is why we're sticking with that.

Um have used that more in like a more of a courtyard setting.

In this particular case, they're trying to use it more as a backyard, hence the request for a taller wall, and why the design review board um recommended a higher one, but that's a part of the request today.

Right, thank you, Ms.

Palmer.

Can you just show me the overall plan map?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um just for everybody's clarification, I voted no on the design review committee because of these walls and the setback.

I I think they're unsightly, but we'll get into that in a second.

But because of that, why couldn't we take unit 5A and five 5A and 5e, the two the two units that have the setback issue?

Why couldn't we just rotate those 180 degrees and have the driveways off of Pierce Drive, and then that way you could actually make a bigger backyard with a full-size fence and you wouldn't be in the setback.

Would there be any problem with that?

Would that create an issue?

I mean, that would really solve the problem and on the uh the the request for uh we might for the variants.

We might want to consider public works.

Are there any issues with the driveways being that close to the intersection it it isn't unheard of, certainly, but it is not the preference to have driveways that close to an intersection.

These are not really busy streets, so it's not as big of an issue as it would be at if this were you know larger arterial streets.

Okay, so we could rotate those units then based on nobody sees any code issue on that typically when there's alleys or different means of entrance, we take access from an alley or from outside of the street.

So we type from a circulation standpoint.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So I guess just to recap, um, staff's position is to minimize the amount of driveway openings serving this site, it would be preferable that it's from within the site and or the alley where or the existing opening off of Pierce as opposed to creating new driveways along Pierce.

But we wouldn't be creating a code issue, like we have a code issue with the backyard with these privacy walls.

We have a code issue.

If we flipped it around, those walls would be in the back off the alley, and they could be six feet tall, and they wouldn't have to the yard would be bigger by five feet from what I can see, because the you know you wouldn't have to have that additional five-foot buffer that they're proposing.

So we'd make the yards bigger, and and it's not a preference, but there wouldn't be a code compliance issue there, right?

Ricky, is there a zoning issue there?

Uh I don't believe it's so no.

Okay, cool.

Oh, that was my last question.

Yep.

So just a couple questions.

So you you mentioned so does this in any way I know it's a small project, but does it in any way help our arena numbers?

Well, I mean, it's that's the lower.

So this does help us with our arena numbers.

Again, I said it was a pretty small project, right?

It's not you know 180 units.

It yeah, it complies with the um existing zoning designation, which is 15 dwelling units per acre, but it is a proje a housing project.

Okay, and then you had said something about parking because it's piggybacked.

Can you repeat that?

I missed that.

So we can't count while the project provides more than what the code requires in terms of the overall number of parking spaces.

We can't necessarily count the spaces that are in the driveway as complying with code because of the design.

So while the project complies with the minimum requirement of guest parking and residential development, it has kind of the unofficial benefit of having more parking than what's required.

Okay, thank you.

Uh that's it.

All right, I just have one question.

Um so for units three E, the three series units, the driveways to the garage, that's on the north side, right?

And so the yards on the south side.

Um, what size are those walls?

Are those the 44-inch walls?

Those are 43 high, like kind of like courtyards.

Kind of like a courtyard.

Those are like a little paseo area, like a walkway between the two um two the ones and twos and the threes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, no further questions.

Uh, we'll now open up the public hearing.

Do we have any speakers?

We have seven speakers.

I'm going to call you down.

Please uh state your name when you are um before you speak, and please line up at both microphones.

Brian Sassoonian, Tracy Souters, Claire Stouters, Jack Stouters, Carol McFarlane, Dan Danny O'Leary, and Kevin Morgenstern.

You can start speaking as soon as you step up.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners, the staff.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

I'll try and keep it kind of short and sweet.

When I was a kid, I didn't realize me playing Legos was going to be so instrumental in my life until I joined my dad's business and started doing this project.

This these were built.

My dad started building this 24 years ago.

I don't know how many projects you've seen that gone that long, but I came on over a decade ago.

These were encyclopedia lots.

There's a ton of them.

My dad got a couple of them about 24 years ago.

Over the time, he piecemealed a couple more.

When I came along, my brother Aaron also, it was a ton of work to get this off the ground.

We had one parcel in particular.

We had to track down 32 owners because the way it worked was a tiny little piece right in the middle next to one B that 32 people owned.

We had to find all of them, and if they couldn't be found, some of them were dead.

We had to find the successors to the deceased who could not be found.

It was just one example of how long this process was, along with the easements that was quite challenging.

Anyway, after a few decades and quite a few years and maybe five or six different proposals, we feel we've come up with something that could actually be built, at least within our lifetime.

While he's still in his golden years, this the project meets all of the staff's uh requirements, all the all the code, minus that wall, which I'll put to the side for a second.

But if we can get that, if we can get that done, we would have something that could be developed, get some housing to this community, something that we hope we can all be proud of.

My dad has a pretty long track record of bit building homes around Huntington Beach that have been successful and pioneering in certain areas of Huntington Beach where he's built things and then others have followed in suit, which is kind of the situation here.

If you look at the can you put the the elevation, the very first one with the with it uh yeah, that's good.

So the four the 44-inch wall we're talking about along Pierce Drive.

We're requesting six feet, even five feet would be good, and but six feet would be preferred for um uh security purposes and for privacy purposes.

So go ahead and finish your thought.

As you can see, it's aesthetically pleasing.

Not only do we have the Stockout wall, but is covered by palm trees and a lot of landscaping in front.

All I'm saying is is beautiful, and all we ask is that it just be high enough so that when somebody's walking across the main street on Pierce Drive, they just can't look into the backyard where the kids are playing.

It's that simple.

I understand that there's a code, but it wouldn't apply to everywhere, just here.

Because this is the only way we can make this project work.

It just happened to be flipped.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you for your time.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, members of the planning committee.

My name is Tracy Souders, and I'm a resident of Huddington Beach and a property owner.

We're actually currently the durable power of attorneys for Gloria Souters, who, if you go to the site map, is the property owner at the end of that private easement.

I am requesting that the proposed zoning map amendment be denied as it directly impacts and interferes with our established property rights related to this shared private easement.

Additionally, the proposed development raises significant concerns regarding safety, traffic, and privacy for nearby residents.

I will address these issues separately.

The area in question includes a private easement, which we're all aware of.

I appreciate the fact that they hunted down the owners of these encyclopedia lots.

However, they never bothered to talk to us.

I am also aware that uh the Sassoon's have been trying to acquire these lots for quite some time.

I suggest it's more like 30 years, which is the time that I've known the Souters family.

Also, you mentioned that the easement was not improved since the 80s.

That would have had to be a joint communication between all owners.

We were never once approached by the Sassoonians for that purpose.

They have, however, approached us to purchase.

In fact, let me miss I misspoke.

They did not purchase, they wanted to acquire our encyclopedia lot that located at the end of the site map.

Approval of this zoning amendment relies on the use of our shared private easement, and it will interfere with our ability to reach our property, which includes a two-car garage at the back end of our home at 4801 Pierce.

In terms of traffic and safety concern, the proposed rezoning would increase traffic through an area that was never designed for public or high volume use.

The easement currently functions as a limited private access, not as a roadway.

Increased use raises legitimate concerns regarding pedestrian safety, emergency vehicle access, and traffic congestion.

Additionally, no formal traffic impact analysis has been presented to affected residents.

This proposal would in fact convert a private access point into a de facto public roadway.

Accordingly, I request respectfully that a full environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act be conducted, including a traffic impact study with findings made publicly available.

Affected property owners were not properly engaged prior to this proposal advancing.

I understand that the current plans began as early as 2019, perhaps even 2002, providing ample opportunity for communication with impacted parties.

Decisions of this magnitude require transparency, proper notice, and meaningful community engagement.

Those standards have not been met in this case.

We respectfully request a full and transparent review process before any pro um proposals are considered.

Rezoning decisions must not come at the expense of established property rights, public safety, or due process.

I urge the commission to protect the rights of existing homeowners and the integrity of this community.

I will end by saying if this goes through tonight, we will are we are prepared to open litigation against the Sassoonians and the city of Huntington Beach.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Claire Souders, and I have been a resident of the neighborhood for multiple years.

I'm very familiar with the site and its day-to-day conditions.

I wanted to speak on the current use of the property and the claims being made about traffic.

The applicant has stated there are currently multiple residential units on the site, including apartments and condominiums, generating approximately 75 or more vehicle trips daily, and that the proposed project would only increase the number to around 105.

Based on firsthand experience living next to this property, that does not reflect what actually occurs there.

Over time, I've observed that much of the site has been vacant, underused, or in declining condition for several years.

Several structures have been removed or are no longer actively used, and the existing units are not occupied or functioning at the level being suggested.

The level of activity is limited and inconsistent, not comparable to a fully occupied residential site.

An 18-unit three-story condominium development will introduce a consistent and permanent increase in residents, visitors' delivery deliveries and service vehicles.

That is a fundamentally different level intensity that would that exist today.

And it's not reasonable to assume that adding that many units would result in a minimal traffic increase in traffic.

Given this discrepancy, I respectfully request that the commission require an objective traffic count or circulation study to establish accurate baseline conditions before relying on assumptions that impacts will be minimal.

Accurate data matters.

If the existing conditions are being overstated, then the conclusions about future impacts may also be understated.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Yes, uh, thank you for having hearing us tonight, planning commission.

Uh my name is Jack Sadders, and I own the property adjacent to the uh project site that relies on the private easement behind uh Pierce Drive.

Uh, we do have a garage that opens up onto that private easement.

For decades, my property has depended on this recorded ingress and egress easement as its sole vehicular access.

It is the legal right that runs with the land.

Uh the current proposal suggests that this easement may be removed or incorporated into a new internal system.

However, it does not clearly demonstrate that my access will be preserved.

And that's in its current legal and functional form.

This is the reason why they want to flip the houses around inside the proposal.

They propose fencing it off and possibly trying to charge us to access our own property when we already have a legal right to the easement.

Um I have not, and I do not consent to any relocation, reduction, or modification of my access rights.

My access cannot be made dependent on an HOA controlled roadway or internal service system.

Approval of this map without preserving access would be inconsistent with the California Subdivision Map Act.

Additionally, the proposed development will increase traffic and impact the usability and safety of my access.

At a minimum, I request that this item be continued until my access rights are fully preserved in location, function, and legal independence.

Taken together, our concerns reflect three critical issues protection of legal property rights, preservation of safe and functional access, and the need for accurate evidence-based analysis.

We respectfully ask that this project not move forward until all three have been fully addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

There's two microphones, folks.

You can step up if you'd like to be ready.

Hello, my name's Daniel Leary.

I'll be honest, this is my first time in a local public uh government forum.

I've never gotten engaged civically before.

Uh, but I come here tonight uh to talk about this uh proposal, and I think it first off looks possibly like a bad idea for Huntington Beach.

My first concern is the uh giveaway of public assets.

Uh the city's being asked to rescind the paper streets and alignments of uh the plan and be given to a private developer.

Uh I'd like to have a better understanding as to what the city uh receives back in this and uh how it might be able to benefit uh in greater.

Uh we you'd be vacating a public right-of-way to hand it over to private developer versus zero return.

I again ask why.

By giving up these easements, we lose all the leverage in negotiating to make a proper buffer for the park or for the families using the area.

Secondly, and I do say this with some genuine reluctance.

I've developed, I've only moved here in the last two years, and I've developed uh an unlikely, uh maybe not unlikely, but a hobby nonetheless uh of bird watching.

My friends are already staging an intervention.

They keep asking me, are you 35 or 80?

Uh I'm uh and I I've never intended to be that bird guy, but when you live next to this park and when you live near Bolsa Chica, it's kind of hard not to.

One of the local residents I've taken notice is of seeing the white-tailed kite.

It's a forging bird that relies on prairie grounds.

Now, regardless of how many of us feel about a bird, the state of California is looking for any excuse to sue cities like ours.

These kites are fully protected.

If we approve this tonight without any current protocol levels of biological survey, we're heading a loaded gun to Sacramento to the city for a lawsuits for years.

Why would we give them that ammo?

Why take the legal risk on a project that's already cutting corners and parking?

Parking's a big issue.

Uh, and giving away safety.

I'm not here to stop housing.

I know we need it.

Uh I'm a big proponent of that.

All I'm asking for is responsible planning.

I respectfully request a continuance.

Let's keep our public uh easements, let's verify the biological data, and let's protect the city's legal standing.

I hope that's something we can all get behind.

Let's delay this until we have a plan that actually works for the neighborhoods, works for the city, and works for all of us.

I ask you to take this into consideration tonight, and I also thank you for giving me the time to speak for my first time.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, commissioners.

Thank you for all the work that you do.

My name is Kevin Morgenstern.

Um I'm a lifetime resident of Orange County.

I'm also the property owner of 16681 Green Lane.

Me and my father bought that in 2021.

And you know, I've had uh some general um contact with the Sassoon's um since we purchased that, just in anticipation of the project that's been on the dock since 2019.

Um overall, I work in real estate development.

Um I work for Olin Properties, we're one of the largest commercial property owners in Orange County.

Um, and I do acquisitions and I run our leasing department.

So uh to say I am a friend of development is an understatement.

Um, but of course, you know, when something's right next door to me, um, it's very, very important to me.

Um, I mean, overall, I think for the area, this is gonna have a good impact on values long term.

Like overall, it will bring brighten up the overall look and aesthetic of the area.

It'll bring something new um into an area that hasn't had anything built in a long time.

Another interesting fact, uh, I've not been able to get insurance recently because of the public um uh the empty space.

It's is actually considered for insurance underwriters as blight because they they can't foresee why a coastal urban infill will go vacant for this long.

Um so they see it as a as a risk being next to it.

So that's just one thing I wanted to comment.

But overall, we also have had complaints with certain people that have come to lease in the apartments and have been concerned about being next to a vacant lot.

So long term I want it to not be a vacant lot.

I think the whole community will benefit from it not being a vacant lot.

It's been a vacant lot for too long.

So it needs to be something.

Um, you know, overall, I think the project has good parking.

Parking is tight.

And you guys know during COVID, all the you know, everyone decoupled, houses decoupled, right?

As housing got more expensive, or as many people wanted to go individual, people moved into more one bedrooms, things got less dense.

Now everything's gotten expensive, people are decoupling again or coupling again.

So there is so much parking um strain in this given dense area.

Um so I think the project does have ample parking.

I think you should look at the tandem spaces.

Um, and then lastly, you know, um, the Sasudians and me have been going back and forth about you know, my impact here and the wall and that little vacant space up there, but we're working through it.

We don't have an easement or anything um in place, but um, you know, they've been amenable to talking with me and um overall I'm in support of the project.

So thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, uh commissioners and staff.

Thank you.

My name is Wunsi Lee.

I'm with Hanush Architect, and I'm the applicant here tonight.

Um I'm here just to address uh Commissioner Thina's question whether it's possible to rotate the 5A and 5E 180 degree.

We actually have that design in the original design many many years ago.

And at that time, staff has suggested that we rotate it to minimize curb cut.

Um and so that's why we have the configuration that you see today.

In addition to that, this allow us um more landscape area to meet the minimum required uh tree tree requirement.

Um and I also wanted to point out that um uh Bijan and Samir had thoughtfully um designed this project.

Um, and we are meeting the needed housing demand that that is needed today.

Um, instead of building apartment, you know, Bichan wanted a you know uh uh more like a single family homes, you know.

And so what you see here, even though they're attached, when you see in the elevation, they feel more like a single family detached homes with private two-car private garage and driveway.

Um, so I just hope that uh commissioner can see um the benefit that we bring this project to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Last call for Carol McFarland.

Okay.

We have no further speakers.

No further speakers.

Okay, with no further speakers.

We will now open, or excuse me.

We're gonna close the uh public hearing now and uh planning commissioners.

Let's deliberate unless you want to make a motion.

Well, you know, we can see one quick question um to staff.

Um there was a claim of a uh private easement um being uh expanded on or used, and when you read the tentative map, um that driveway easement that serves the properties along Pierce Drive.

I believe that's what we're referring to.

Um it says that it's a um an easement for the uh street purposes only dedicated to the city Huntington Beach on various deeds of record.

I imagine uh public works verified that that was uh an easement for streets to the city.

Is that is that what those are?

Are they private drive easements?

That is correct.

Uh Commissioner Thenis, we did review the easement deeds, and they are dedicated to the city to the public for public use, and we're adding four more feet to that that uh southern drive aisle to make it a um 24-foot-wide public easement for fire access mainly, and then it'll be uh you know, for the public as well.

Okay, so the existing easement in place today that's currently being used, that was dedicated for public purposes by some other instrument prior to this project.

Correct, correct.

And that was even dedicated prior to the precise plan of street alignment that we're asking to rescind tonight.

So that's you mean the street vacation of the street through the middle that's a portion of it, but the the precise plan of street alignment was um to widen the streets to a a standard street width over existing public access easements.

The access easements are not going away.

The street easements are remaining to the public, and um only a you know portion of that middle easement will go away, but the um the other remainders will stay right.

The the easement running through the middle of the site, a portion of that's being vacated, I take it.

Correct.

Yeah, of course.

Okay.

So um Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

We can discuss it all night long if you want, but I'd like to put a motion on the table anyway.

I would love to entertain a motion.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve as as requested, allowing for that uh 60 inch.

I'm gonna be the by the known as the fence guy, because this will be the second time I've set precedent uh per Supreme Court that from now on every every every fence gets extended.

Anyway, I would like to make a motion to approve the requested uh the requested uh conditional use permit numbers, uh, the zoning map, uh amendment 19 tentative track.

Anyway, how as stated, I'd like to make a motion to include the 60-inch uh fence, and uh that's my motion.

The only question I would have to staff is the what was approved was 44 inches or 42 inches.

Staff was recommending 44.

44.

So we're we're given the design review board a hand.

Recommended 60.

You're giving them a hand on the board.

I'm giving them I'm gonna I'm just giving off, yes.

So we have a motion so they can put a footage in the backyard.

Exactly.

Yeah, I'd like to discuss this.

I I you know I'm concerned.

Um this is a new project.

The main street fence was um an existing condition.

Um that was an existing building with an existing parking lot where they had an existing parking count they needed to maintain, and they cited security issues that existed that were real.

The the applicant is suggesting their security issues that obviously don't exist because this building hasn't been constructed.

And when you look at our older um subdivisions throughout the city, we have curb gutter sidewalk, it's a concrete jungle, and that's all we have.

And if you look at Seacliff Village, that's modern modern planning.

Modern planning says we have setbacks, landscape setbacks, we don't build walls straight up so that so that you don't have this crowded feeling that's that's you know, so approving a taller wall within the setbacks is taking a step back from modern planning, which suggests we provide landscape setbacks without these walls, and you'll see that again around the sea cliff area and all of our newer subdivisions.

We have landscape setbacks before we have the walls, even even on the rear property lines.

You'll see that uh uh up and down uh Golden West, south of you know, just north of Pacific Coast Highway, the newer subdivisions provided that landscape setback.

So uh again, this is setting a precedent that that I really like not to um approve.

I really love the motion to be revised to to provide a staff recommendation, 44-inch wall.

Um and and um I'd like to respond to the commissioner before we decide if we're gonna amend this or not.

But what I'll say to you is first of all, the city has been battling the state of California for with tens of thousands of dollars to stop development in this city.

They've just absolutely we are known for it throughout the entire state.

This is a beautiful project, is a 20 million dollar project.

You're talking about two of the 18 units.

By the way, when I look at that site map, if you can put that back up real quick, I will tell you the other thing.

Forget about all the other rigamorough we're talking about here.

The fact that the front front is gonna face their other neighbors that are gonna be right across there, the one B and one E makes it feel more like a community.

Now I know that there's homes to the left there that are not gonna be part of this area because unfortunately, you know, or fortunately they wanted to stay there and they don't they they want to we couldn't make this it would be really cool if we can make that whole that whole thing the exactly the same.

But here's the deal.

This is an opportunity, it's sat there since 1981.

This guy's been dealing with this thing for decades to give them from 44 inches to and they they wanted they wanted six feet, which quite frankly I believe they should get, but I'm not gonna argue that here with our with the commission because 44 inches is a standard, but that but they were willing to comp your your your committee, I shouldn't point at you, but the committee that you served on agreed that 60 inches was a reasonable compromise and it will allow them to put a jacuzzi if they want to put jacuzzi or whatever else, and it will give them a little more security.

So I I don't see any reason to to change this my motion, but I of course I need a second.

So there you go.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

I'd like to share my comment.

I I agree with with Commissioner Fina's logic on this.

I mean, I I drove the street and there's there's no walls that are that tall.

I mean, it's to say it's a security issue, the house next door has no wall, right?

It's not the backyard though, it's the front yard.

That's fine.

Would would the applicant if if would the applicant agree to rotate the houses?

I think they wanted to do that in the beginning, and that would solve everybody's problem, I think.

And in fact, I think it makes the backyard bigger.

It just makes sense.

So we don't have a second.

You don't have a second.

I just wanted to say something, you know.

Go ahead.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Well, I well, I let's let's see if Mr.

Thenus idea carries weight here.

Um, well, first of all, I I wanted to focus on the elevation, what it looks like.

We're not looking at a block wall.

We're looking at a wall that is screened with hedges and boxwood plants and uh palm tree.

So in reality, when you're driving by, you're not looking at this gray gray wall.

You're looking at this screenery that's very similar to any other homes that's along um Pierce Drive.

I I went through Google Um Street Field and look at all the homes.

Yes, they some of them they don't have the five-foot wall, but guess what?

They have an eight-foot high hedge wall, um hedge plant.

You know, some of them you can't see because the hedges in front of that, but they also have a tall wall.

Um, so and we're just talking about two lots here.

Um, we're trying to be very sensible.

You know, we wanted to design a beautiful project that are welcoming and people will want to buy it.

Um, so um I would like to um request uh that we have this uh 60-inch this five-foot high wall with the planting screen in front of it.

Thank you.

Question for staff is there no uh safety provision in the zoning code for a fence height in the front setback?

Is it just one uh one dimension?

It's limited to 42 inches.

That's the rec that's the loud height for the front yard setback.

And you were giving them two inches.

So historically, looking at projects with similar designs, we had allowed up to 44.

Um, as one C brought up, there's other examples in the area that show additional reduced setbacks in the front, which is one example right here.

This is about five feet just north of the project area.

Right.

So I I guess my comment is in regards to this comprehensive conversation we're having in all things block walls that having a background in construction, uh the issue of safety is is paramount on on this particular one because of where it faces.

If they don't flip it, you know, or are we gonna make it?

I think we should be concerned with the safety of the people that are living there for a couple reasons.

People jumping the fence, and the other one is that if somebody does put a hot tub in there, that the state uh requirement is 60 inches.

So I mean, I'm not trying to project into the future.

Well, uh, but I see a place to land.

Please give me a second.

I have a couple things.

I understand we don't want uh a city of walls.

I do understand that.

Uh so I would prefer a lower wall, but I like the landscaping, but I also agree that in within a tract within a neighborhood, you pretty much want to face your community.

So having those two homes face an outer street seems a little like a disconnect to me.

That that's all.

So uh overall this looks it looks much nicer than some of the things we've seen.

I'd like to follow up my my earlier comments regarding umits three, the three series, and you know, those those areas, those front yards have the 44-inch wall.

What's what's the difference besides the fact that it's on the main street?

But I mean it's the the the the you the the reasons being used are that you want to put a hot tub in.

Well, can these people put a hot tub in what it's it's not it's not the same argument?

Well it it's it's just the potential.

I I I like both ways.

If they could flip it, it solves the problem.

If they can't, you know, have one dozen of another at this point, guys.

We have a we have a motion.

Listen, I just have uh just one comment and then I'll second the motion.

All right.

But I mean, it is uh, you know, it when I look at the pictures of the community now, right?

I mean, this is a beautification project.

You know, it's a tremendous asset to the community to have these brand new homes in there.

I mean, most everything to me looks like it's 50 years old and you know, maybe a a little run down.

So um I'll second the motion.

Well, actually tell me the height of the wall that you're yeah, I didn't I didn't sneak and sneak one in.

It's the it's the way that was presented, which would be the it's not gonna be the six-foot wall, it's the it's the five foot wall, which is sixty inches high.

Exactly.

That that was the deal.

That was the motion was to approve it as presented.

Yes.

I'm sorry, modified by DRB by the DRB.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You got a first and a second.

What was the last uh environmental study doctors?

We can't we can't respond.

We've closed public comment at this point.

It's a mood point.

We need a vote.

Sorry, I don't know.

Hey, I would go buy a house there from one of my kids.

This looks like a nice little area.

Commissioner Sthenis, Chair Bush.

I don't have a vote from you.

You don't have a vote again?

Okay.

Uh can you verbally tell me your vote?

Commissioner Chair Bush.

Voting for the project.

Voting for the project.

So yay.

And then Commissioner Clifford.

Yes.

Okay.

We have six eyes.

Commissioner McGee is absent.

Motion carries.

The planning commission's action on the zoning map amendment is a recommendation that will be forwarded to this the city council.

The planning commission's action on the tentative track map.

Use permit is final unless an appeal is filed to the city council within 10 calendar days.

Everybody need gonna screw our Ricky Council B.

I will not be present at the next meeting.

Oh done.

We're not done yet.

Are we done?

I think I'm a little punch drunk here.

Um, we are not done.

Uh staff report.

We have a few more items on the agenda, Chair.

Oh, sorry.

It's past our bedtime.

We didn't realize we were working past overtime here.

So do we have a consent calendar?

None.

No public hearing planning items.

Next agenda.

Next on the agenda are planning items.

Can staff provide a report?

Yes, we currently have one item uh scheduled for the May 12th planning commission meeting.

It's an appeal of a duplex on Liberty Drive.

So we're gonna have a meeting.

The duplex.

And I will be absent.

Duplex.

I think it's a four-play.

Before we close this evening, planning commissioners.

Do you have any comments to provide?

We'll start on my right with Mr.

Clifford.

Nothing.

I just want to thank everyone for a nice civil discussion.

That was uh that was that was good.

So I enjoy working with you all.

Thank you.

Likewise, I think that um, you know, the discussion and obviously some of us are more prepared because of their background, and I think the discussion was you know fruitful, I guess.

Thank you.

No, I I uh I agree.

I really appreciate this uh planning commission.

I think I've been to going going to planning commissions in various cities for the last 40 years, and I think uh this group is the most prepared and concerned planning commission I've ever seen.

And I'm a part of it.

Yeah, we're we are going to miss you.

Um I just want to say, yes, it's great to work with everybody here.

I love you all.

Uh I find it very fascinating.

I haven't been on this commission for a terribly long time, but what looks like a simple project on the face is every one of them seems to be a can of worms.

So uh thank you for all the work.

If if you're spending as much time as I am, uh your family's probably throwing things at you.

And I just want to echo as well that regardless of whether we agree on every item.

I will tell you that I do appreciate and respect every one of your uh thoughts and how much time you put in it, especially Commissioner Athenis, who really digs deep and does and obviously is on the other board as well.

But uh all of you I appreciate the um the respect and the information and the insights.

So thank you.

You know, it's just like I told Tracy Pellman when she was commissioner.

I said I may not always agree with you, but you make me better because of the questions because of the process.

So that being said, I it's it's uh I appreciate you guys' support.

You know, let's just keep going.

You know, we're we're doing good work.

With that, uh that is the last item on the agenda.

We're hereby adjourned to the next planning commission on Tuesday, May 12, 2026.