Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-15Approved July 7, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: - Civic Center California Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schuma(ther None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1982, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from 6-1-82) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum projedt size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited. to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delin- eated at open space corridors in which no residential develop- ment will be allowed. The plan also delineates a system of in- ternal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been prepared for this specific plan. Charles Clark outlined the history of the General Plan designa- tion of Estate Zoning on this property and explained the organiza- tion of the specific plan document. He described the necessary Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 2 steps in the approval process and informed the Commission that all correspondence received by staff has been included in the sub- mittals to the Commission. He noted that two property owners in the area have requested that their properties be removed from the Specific Plan. Carol Inge reviewed the changes which have been made since the prior review. First of those were changes outlined in the staff report which came about as a result of the comments received. She also described the reorganization of the Specific Plan into four major parts: 1) introduction and.goals; 2) implementing standards; 3) "next step" action, which'talks about the Possibility of redev- elopment and assessment_ districts; and 4) the FIR plus comments_re- ceived thereon and responses to those comments. The implementing standards section addresses each subarea separately. In Subarea One Miss Inge reported that it does not pose any detailed development standards but states that prior to development of any part of the area a development plan must be submitted and approved. Standards for the area would allow oil activities to continue, with_ new -wells -allowed in all parts of Subarea One currently having the -01 zoninq suffix. Subarea Two contains detailed development standards, with changes made to those standards in the area of equestrian uses and oil drill- ing islands. The latter change will permit one new drilling island for every 20 acres of subsurface mineral rights under ownership or lease; this could allow approximately 5 oil islands in Subarea Two. Another change recommended by staff is the use of rolled curb and gutter as part of'the rural street, standards instead of the dirt or gravel shoulder previously recommended. Standards for Area Three are similar to those for Subarea One. Con- tinued operation of existing oil uses would be allowed, with the same requirement for submittal of a development plan for any project proposed in the area in the future. Brief Commission discussion took place on these changes. The public hearing was reopened. H. Walker, representing Chevron, addressed the Commission to request the following amendments to the Plan: 1) With the inclusion ifi the oil category of storage and tanks, it is felt that the 1.5 acre size for oil islands may not be adequate, and Mr. Walker suggested that the wording be changed to allow an island "not to exceed 2:5 acres in size subject to the approval of Development Services," and 2) he requested that the area west of Edwards Street be removed from the Plan and considered as a resource production area. -2- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 3 V. Kahle, property owner in the area, spoke to the Commission to ask for information on how the small lots in the area would be able to be used. He was advised of the consolidation of parcels which would be required under the plan and also was in- formed that the present General Plan designation and zoning would not permit development of his lot as a residential site even without the implementation of the Specific Plan. Dean Albright spoke in opposition to some of the proposed street realignments, and also addressed Fire Department access into the area and the possibility that construction of dwellings and stables and the resultant runoff might have an adverse effect to the park below the bluffs. Michael Knapp, representing the Huntington Beach Environmental Board, spoke in support of the Specific Plan and urged that the area to the west of Edwards be left within the Plan to ensure that when it does develop it is in accordance with the rest of the area. Mr. Knapp discussed item by item the recommenda- tions made -by the Board in its memorandum -to the Commission (contained in the departmental file) and urged adoption of the Specific Plan with those recommended changes. Connie Mandic, representing Equestrian Trails, Inc., spoke to the Commission in regard to the provision of equestrian facili- ties within the Specific Plan area.. She also suggested that five -acre consolidations could provide a very good equestrian estate project, adding that such small acreages should be limited to two units per acre, while the 10 acre parcels could be allowed the three units per acre that the plan is proposing. Mrs.Mandic discussed as well the rural street standards, fencing in the projects, uses allowed in the open space corridors, trail widths and locations, square footage of lots as it might relate to the number of horses permitted to be kept, and other aspects of the development standards. Jay Panchal, engineer, presented alternative street sections for the Commission's consideration. One section is intended to modify the private street standard, which Mr. Panchal indicated seems a little excessive for projects with 10 or less lots; he also submitted a section for the provision of equestrian trails along arterials. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, indicated to the Commission that his company now feels that the plan has been sufficiently revised to -be generally compatible with their concerns relative to preserving the oil drilling activities and, secondly, that the withholding of specific development standards in Subareas -One and Three until such time as gurface develop- ment is contemplated is a step forward. However, the company would still ask that Areas One and Three not be included in the Specific Plan and the property owner be allowed to develop -3- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 4 those areas with future specific plans when development is proposed. Mr. Holman addressed specific areas in the plan document requiring correction or clarification. A new request made by the Huntington Beach Company is that the oil in Subarea Three be treated in the same manner as it is proposed to be treated in Subarea Two, giving the operator a new island with'the location and size to be described when new drilling is permitted. It was Mr. Holman's feeling that including this provision in the plan would prevent them from having to come back to the Commission to request a zone change should it be desired to drill in that area. The final point made by Mr. Holman was the.Company's objection to the special fee that would be charged back to property owners*on a per -acre basis to pay for the costs of the Specific Plan and their opposition to any mandatory in- clusion of equestrian facilities, which they feel should be the prerogative of a developer and property owner. B.G. Williams, representing an oil company and property owner in Subarea Three, addressed the Commission to confirm his understanding that if the plan is adopted oil operations can continue and to urge that the "O-l" suffix be added to all oil operations within the area. Mr. Kahle and the Commission further discussed the need for lot consolidation and the methods by which this could be accomplished. There were -no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included the following: Question of Subareas One and Three: The Commission reviewed the re- quests to exclude these two areas from the Specific Plan, considering the preservation of topographical features and the need for providing an integrated circulation system throughout the area. At the end of discussion a straw vote was taken on the subject. It was determined to leave both Subareas One and Three in the Specific -Plan by the fol- lowing straw vote: Ayes: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: Higgins Absent: None Abstain: None Question of Application of Development Standards to Areas One & Three: The Chairman then called for a decision on whether or not the Commis- sion wished to apply the same development standards to Areas One and Three as will be applied to Subarea Two. Noting that the June 15 staff report indicates that the Specific Plan now requires application of standards only to Subarea Two, Ms. Winchell said that an "aye" vote will support the staff's recommendation and a "no" vote will re- quire imposition of standards to all subareas equally. The following straw vote was taken: Ayes: Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher i� 1 -4- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 5 Commissioner Higgins then requested that a straw vote be taken on each subarea individually. A straw vote on Subarea Three, with the same stipulation as be- fore on the meaning of votes, resulted in the following: Ayes: Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher (The above tie vote is interpreted to mean that the staff recom- mendation will be followed and no development standards will be applied to Subarea Three.) The straw vote on Subarea One (same stipulation) resulted in the following: Ayes: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Porter Noes: Winchell, Schumacher Development standards will not apply to Subarea One. Further intensive discussion took place in regard to Subarea Three, considering its location across Goldenwest Street from the remainder of the area, the current and adjacent land uses, and existing and planned street alignments. A second straw vote on whether or not to impose the development standards on this subarea produced the following vote: Ayes: Schumacher (to impose standards as in Subarea Two) Noes: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell., Porter The Commission then proceeded to a page -by -page discussion of the items staff had presented. Items of concern resolved by either a straw vote or consensus include the following: The access road across the Brindle property off Goldenwest Street was discussed in detail. The consensus that emerged from this discussion was that staff should investigate the cir- culation and -ownership patterns to attempt to site the access road in a location which would not divide such a large, already consolidated parcel and -to consider the possibility of not allowing any access off Goldenwest Street at all. By consensus, the Commission directed staff to investigate Mrs. Mandic's suggestion for five -acre parcels with a two unit per acre density restriction. . By consensus, the Commission directed staff to investigate berming along the arterials. In this same discussion, it was determined that fencing in the area should be uniform and that no solid walls should be permitted along the arterials. -5- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 6 . The Commission discussed the trail system with staff, including interior trails, the possibility of establishing some kind of trail along the arterials, connecting links to the main trail within the project area, and the County trail system planned along Ellis Avenue. By consensus the Commission decided that the Specific Plan should make every effort to tie the project into any major trail system, in- cluding the County's, and that the trail width in the Plan should be reduced to 16 feet. Also discussed by the Commission were street.alignments, open space corridors, use of -the swales in the area, and equestrian uses. It was the conclusion of the Commission that sufficient public input and Commission discussion had been given to provide staff with adequate direction to revise the plan and respond to comments. Staff will re- view the -information and prepare its responses to both oral and written suggestions for the next meeting. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST_ SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING TO BE CALLED ON JUNE 22, 1982, AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08/ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-15 Applicant: Robert J. Zinngrabe To permit: 1) the construction of an eleven story, 68,261 square foot office/medical building; 2) to permit a reduction in lot area, lot coverage, and reduction of parking for the proposed building; and 3) to permit subdivision of one parcel of land into two parcels for the construction,of said building. Subject property is located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 450 feet south of Main Street within the Pacifica Specific Plan area. Jim Barnes reviewed the project and the uses proposed within the new building. He noted that the developer is proposing to use the existing parking in the entire Pacifica complex to satifsy the park- .. ing requirements for the building. At present there are 528 parking spaces dispersed throughout the whole development. The zoning code requirements for parking for the entire development with the new building would be 894 spaces, with the new building itself generating a requirement of 380 spaces according to the parking ratios in the code. This results in a 366 space parking shortage for the Pacifica' complex, and of the issues identified by staff this shortage is considered the most significant. -6- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 7 It is staff's feeling that conflicting information between the application submittal, the traffic report, and the conditions existing in the field in regard to number of parking spaces, the disjointed nature of the parking facilities proposed to serve this complex, and the possible effects upon adjacent arterial streets justify the staff recommendation for continuance to per- mit additional information. In addition, Public Works has requested that there be an analysis of adjacent streets in terms of capacities. Commissioner Porter asked that the prior studies and reports done when the Pacific Community Plan was originally approved be researched for information relevant to circulation, street re- alignments and signalization, and intensity of anticipated development. It was his feeling that potential traffic genera- tion for the whole complex had been a consideration and plans made to take care of that traffic. The public hearing was opened. Robert Zinngrabe, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of his proposal. He explained the uses and the number of addi- tional persons who might be expected to need parking spaces as a result of the new construction, which he indicated would be only a small number. Mr. Zinngrabe said that the amount of park- ing provided would be adequate in part because of the nature of his uses and -in part because of the staggered times when parking would be utilized. He also presented a written list of steps he would agree to take to correct the situation if at any time in the future his proposed parking was found to indeed be inade- quate to serve the complex. These measures included his willing- ness to construct a parking structure if found to be necessary. Richard Harlow also spoke in support of the project. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Legal Counsel Art Folger discussed the difficulty of enforcing the conditions that the applicant has suggested as a means of correcting any future parking defi- ciency which might result from construction of the building as proposed. Two of the Planning Commissioners expressed concern with the size of the discrepancy between the code -required num- ber of parking spaces and the number actually proposed to be provided. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-15 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -7- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558 TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1982, TO PERMIT STAFF TO PROVIDE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff informed the Commission that alternative findings and conditions had been prepared and are available if it is the Commission's desire to approve the project. ON MOTION BY PAONE-AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR ACTION FOR CONTINUANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1982, WAS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Paone, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff was directed to review the documentation on the original Pacifica Plan for pertinent information, look at the existing parking code as it applies to the complex, and present further information on the dis- crepancy in parking provision. Mr. Zinngrabe informed the Commission that he was agreeable to all the proposed conditions submitted by staff and was prepared to stipulate to those outlined in his letter as well. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-9 Applicant: Don A. Lee To permit an amusement center in an existing shopping center located on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Staff briefly reviewed the proposal. The public hearing was opened. Karen Shaffer, nearby property owner, spoke to the Commission in oppo- sition to the proposed use, citing noise and crime problems which would likely result from its operation. -8- 6-15-82 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 9 Howard Trabant, 8077 Yorktown, also spoke in opposition to the proposed arcade. The public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed the staff's recommendations and considered the public input. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-9 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed amusement arcade facility is not buffered on the east by buildings, utility easements, permanent open space, or arterial streets as required by the locational criteria found in S. 9332(q) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The proposed arcade is not compatible with the existing beer bar located to the north. The beer bar is an adult -oriented activity, as opposed to a game arcade which is a family - oriented activity. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-10 Applicant:. Robco Sports To permit the expansion of Resolution No. 1263 to allow sales, service, and racing of radio -controlled cars within an existing industrial building located on the east side of Gothard Street between Warner and Heil Avenues. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the proposal. The Commission discussed the uses and percentage of commercial permitted in the mixed use development in which the proposal would be located. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 82-10 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Approval of the proposed use would exceed the maximum allow- able percentage of commercial uses fronting on an arterial -9- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 10 highway in a mixed use development. S. 9533.1.2(c) of the Ord- inance Code permits the commercial portion of a mixed use to occupy up to 50 percent of the original ground floor area of all buildings fronting on an arterial highway in the mixed use dev- elopment. Approval of the proposed use would exceed this require- ment by 18 percent. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-10 would not meet the intent of S. 9533.1.1, Purpose of Mixed Uses, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The proposed use is not considered a highly restricted type of commercial use and does not necessarily need to be located within a mixed use development. 3. The onsite parking is not adequate for a land use of this type and could create parking and traffic problems for the mixed use cen- ter. The 13,265 square foot building was approved with 26 onsite parking spaces. The proposed use would be required to provide approximately 182 onsite parking spaces based on one parking space for each 35 square feet of gross floor area (S. 9793.3, Public and Semi -Public Uses). AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-11 Applicant: Straw Hat Restaurant Corporation To permit a maximum of 15 video game machines in an existing restaur- ant located on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. Howard Zelefsky informed the Commission that the staff had felt that, even though this proposed use is located closer than one-half mile to an elementary school, the fact that the school is completely within a residential tract and the machines will be located within a rest- aurant should preclude young students from visiting the site. Condi- tions on hours of operation were not included because staff feels these can coincide with the hours the restaurant is open. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the proposal. The Commission reviewed the application. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY--LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-11 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -10- 6-15-82 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 11 FINDINGS: 1. Although the proposed use is closer than one-half mile from an elementary school, it is the Commisson's judgment that the location of that school totally within a residential tract, as well as the establishment of the game machines with- in an existing large restaurant, will sufficiently mitigate any possible impact and justify this deviation from the loca- tional criteria. 2. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses because they are zoned and designated in the General Plan as general commercial. 3. The subject application substantially complies with the cri- teria set forth in Section 9332, Game Arcades. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated May 15, 1982 shall be the approved layout. 2. All the proposed game machines shall be located within the "Fun Station" enclosed by sound -absorbing panels, as described in the communication from the Tomar Company received and dated May 13, 1982. 3. No additional signing for the game arcade shall be permitted. 4. Provisions shall be made for a bicycle rack for the proposed use. The location and number of stalls shall be determined by the Department of Development Services. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any viola- tion of the applicable zoning laws or of these conditions of approval. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-05 Applicant: Electrical Products,Coporation To permit the erection of a double -face 5 x 8 foot monument sign with a price panel, at a total height of 15 feet, in an existing service station located on the southwest corner of McFadden Avenue and Edwards Street. -11- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 12 Grace Winchell inquired if the signs shown in pictures which had been distributed to the Commission had been installed before the present sign code went into effect, and was informed that they had been. Brief discussion took place on the difficulty of enforcing the removal of nonconforming signs. The public hearing was opened. Phil Walker of the sign company addressed the Commission to urge approval of the reqest. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-05 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicin- ity. The site'is a standard location for, a service station. There is no special topographic feature or any unique character- istics related to the land. 2. Since the adoption of the Service -Station Standards in June of 1976, no conditional exceptions have been granted for a devia- tion in the required height or area of signs. An approval of the subject request would be precedent -setting. AYES: Higgins, Livengood,Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-2 Applicant: Pacific Federal Savings To permit an additional freestanding sign on Davenport Drive in the Harbor Shopping Center on the north side of Davenport. The public hearing was opened. Ray Quiel, representing the sign company, explained that he had been granted a permit for the sign and in the process of installing it had found that moving it approximately 20 to 25 feet would pro- vide better visibility for the use. That move is what necessitated the special sign permit request. Margo Chapman, representing Security Pacific Bank (also a tenant of the shopping center) addressed the Commission in support of the requested sign location. -12- 6-15-82 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 13 The public hearing was closed. The Commission considered the distance the proposed sign would be set back from Davenport Drive (approximately 65 to 75 feet), the obstructions at the original site which make the new site for the sign more desirable, and the overall number of signs in the shopping center. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-2 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Strict compliance with the ordinance code will not result in a substantial economic hardship because of options available to the applicant for locating the sign on the Saybrook Lane frontage. 2. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that does not apply generally to other shopping centers located in commercial districts. 3. The granting of this special sign permit request would con- stitute the granting of a special privilege because an addi- tional freestanding sign would be allowed on the Davenport Drive frontage. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-13 Applicant: M. Hora Enterprises, Inc. To permit the expansion and relocation of an existing electronic video game arcade facility located at the southeast corner of Center Drive and Gothard Street. The public hearing was opened. M. Hora spoke to the Commission to explain his request and ask for approval. He will have a total of 58 machines and possibly will serve drinks in the facility. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed use, and the public hearing was closed. Commission considered the request. -13- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 14 ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-13 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed electronic game arcade is a use that is consistent with the City's General Plan and which is compatible with exist- ing and proposed uses in the surrounding area. 2. The proposed electronic game arcade complies with all of the criteria established for game arcades in Article 933. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated May 21, 1982, shall be the approved site plan. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. 3. The facility shall be supervised at all times during operating hours by at least one adult over the age of 18. 4. The proposed use shall comply with all building and Fire Depart- ment regulations. 5. Provisions shall be made for a bicycle rack for the proposed use. The location and number of stalls shall be determined by the Department of Development Services. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this con- ditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS These items -were distributed by Tom Tincher's office for the Commis- sion's information and review. The Chair reminded members about the Central Park EIR, on which comments are due. -14- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 15 HOUSING COMMITTEE The original recommendation of the Commission for the committee_ had included Commissioner Mahaffey, who has since resigned. By consensus the Commission appointed Chairman Winchell to serve with Tom Livengood on this committee. Ms. Winchell directed staff to prepare h letter to Mr. Mahaffey for her signature expressing the Commission's appreciation for his services. REQUEST TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE IN M1-A DISTRICTS Staff discussed a request which has been received to permit tem- porary storage of recreational vehicles in the M1-A District as an interim land use. The Commission concurred to the preparation of a code amendment for review and listed criteria which it will be necessary to include, such as size requirements, screening and landscaping, right-of-way treatment, and a time limit for which such a permit would be issued. Staff was directed to return with a draft amendment. REQUEST TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE The Commission reviewed the request. Savoy Bellavia reported that the request is consistent with the Coastal Element and that parking complies with requirements. The application is to add one unit to an existing motel on Fourteenth Street. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION PERMITTED EXPANSION OF THIS NONCONFORMING USE BY THE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1293, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None' ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Winchell asked for information in regard to a letter received on road repairs. Les Evans, City Engineer, said that Public Works has responded to that letter and will provide Ms. Winchell with a copy of that response. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin provided the Commission with information in regard to City Council action at its June 7 meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned to a special meeting at 7:00 p.m., June 22, 1982, in the Council Chambers. Grace H. Winchell, Chairman ames 1. Palin, S cretary