Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-16APPROVED 7/21/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION June 16, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers -.Civic Center 2000 Main Street . Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of May 5, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 19, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2, 1987 Planning commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MAY 5, 1987, AND MAY 19, 1987, AS SUBMITTED, AND DUNE 2, 1987 WITH CORRECTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS ANNUAL REVIEW OF OCTOBERFEST - Item D-1, Annual Review of Octoberfest, was heard under Oral Communications so that public comments could be made. Motion to approve review was passed. BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Public comments were made by Thelma Ackerman and Irma Benevenia regarding the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. They asked that they be allowed to participate on the redevelopment plan by serving on any related committees so that their concerns and comments could be included in the plans. They were informed by staff of the scheduled meetings for the proposed redevelopment plan (Thursday, June 18 - Tuesday, June 23 - Wednesday, July 1 at the Newland House). C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-12 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-34 APPLICANT: MIGUEL AND SONJA COELLO Coastal Development Permit No. 87-12 is a request to permit the construction of a retaining wall/block wall combination 11 feet 3 inches in height along the rear of a double frontage lot located at 16951 Concord Lane, for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of fill material. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-34 is to permit the subject wall to encroach into the 15 foot setback requirement when a rear property line abuts a street. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 29, 1987, referred the matter to Planning Commission because a number of residents expressed concern regarding the height of the wall and materials used for construction, and the City's policy for determining the maximum height of such walls. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303, and Class 5, Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The wall in question is located within the coastal zone boundaries. Prior to any action on Conditional Exception No. 87-34, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Coastal Development Permit No. 87-12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 87-12 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-34 as modified by staff in accordance with Resolution No. 1381 based on the findings and -conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS, OPPOSITIONS AND APPROVALS FOR BOTH ITEMS C-1 AND C-2 SINCE BOTH ENTITLEMENTS INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN THEIR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WERE HEARD BY THE COMMISSION CONCURRENTLY. June Ascolesi, 16931 Concord Lane, applicant for Item C-2, spoke in support of both requests. She stated that she is willing to bring the wall down to 8 feet with wrought iron on top. Arthur R. Ascolesi, 16931 Concord Lane, applicant for Item C-2, stated that the walls will be constructed and finished off in good taste and he feels that the walls will be an improvement to the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -2- (8452d) Miguel Coello, 16951 Concord Lane, applicant for Item C-1, stated that he originally applied for an 8 foot wall topped with a 6 foot fence and that it was approved. He feels that the walls will be a definite improvement to the neighborhood. Janie Chisholm, 16901 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the walls. She feels that the walls do not comply with the codes and that they should not be allowed on the street. Charles Chisholm, 16901 Westport Drive, opposes the walls. He feels that the walls are unsightly and have not been done in conformance to the codes. He expressed his concerns with the safety of the walls since they are over 14 feet high and a child or pet could fall. He feels that they should be torn down and is willing to take legal action to accomplish their removal. Albert P. Swift, 17089 Westport Drive, spoke in support of the walls. He stated that he appreciates the walls because a lot of wood fences in the neighborhood are falling down. He feels that the walls will be finished off in good taste and will improve the neighborhood. Ruth D. Swift, 17089 Westport Drive, voiced her approval of the walls. She feels they look beautiful and are a definite improvement as opposed to the wood fences in the neighborhood. John Stillman, 16911 Westport Drive, stated that he opposes the walls. He said that the neighbors that like the walls don't have to look at them everyday. He feels that the 12 foot walls take away , the open space feeling of the neighborhood. He further stated that the applicants led the neighborhood to believe that the walls would - be finished off in slumpstone and covered with plants instead of block concrete. Myra Stillman, 16911 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the walls. She feels that the walls are oppressive and that they will lower the property values. She prefers wood fences. J. A. Falcon, 17155 Roundhill Drive, stated that his house faces the walls and that he approves of them. He said that walls have been approved in the neighborhood and that most of them have ivy growing down them and that they look very attractive. Gloria Sliney, 16979 Roundhill Drive, stated that the applicant's home is beautiful and believes that the wall will be finished off just as beautiful. She approves of the walls. Charles M. Sliney, 16979 Roundhill Drive, spoke in support of the walls. Arthur de Heras, 16941 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the walls. He feels they are depressing and should be removed. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -3- (8452d) Shirley de Heras, 16941 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the walls. She stated that some of the walls in the neighborhood have been built in good taste but overall they are an eyesore. V. F. Simonick, 16921 Westport Drive, spoke in support of staff's recommendations regarding the walls. He feels they do need some improvements and that the setbacks will enhance them. He stated that the street noise is amplified because of the walls. He would like to see a fence put on top of the front wall. Al Geiger, 17001 Westport Drive, feels that the walls are ugly and he opposes them. He would rather see the greenbelts. Margaret A. Bromberg, 16971 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the walls. She disapproves of concrete block walls not'built to specifications and feels that they are dangerous. She stated that the walls look like a building built right on the curb line. She faults the City inspectors for allowing the walls to be built against code. Elfriede Geiger, 17001 Westport, opposes the walls. She does not feel that the walls are attractive, that they are too high, and do not fit into the mode of the harbor area because. There were no other persons present to speak for or against Item C-1 or Item C-2 and the public hearing was closed. A discussion followed regarding Resolution 1381, which established the design criteria for rear block walls on double frontage lots in Huntington Harbour. The Commission also discussed the building permit originally issued in January, 1987, for the existing, unfinished block wall. Staff stated that the original permit, issued in January 1987, was a request for a standard 6 foot retaining wall which met structural code and that the permit did contain discrepancies between an 8 foot wall and a 6 foot wall, however that if an 8 foot wall (6 feet high wall with a 2 foot high retaining wall) would have been requested that it would have been permitted. The Commission felt that since the City had accepted money and issued permits for the walls that the applicant was now caught in the middle and that a decision had to be made on these particular walls however felt that the present resolution should be modified or a new code amendment with substantial backup material addressing issues such as landscaping and finish or treatment be prepared and a study session and public hearing be scheduled so that they could receive public input on the matter, preventing any misunderstanding on future requests. They suggested the second Planning Commission meeting in July. Commissioner Higgins felt that this request should be continued for further investigation. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -4- (8452d) Commissioner Silva stated that he was reluctant to approve this request because he felt the walls were unattractive and would change the character of the Harbor area. However, because the original permits were issued and the applicant was caught in the middle he felt that approval with modifications would have to be granted and that a new code amendment should be initiated to prevent any further misunderstandings. Other concerns discussed by the Commission included the safety of the narrow sidewalks abutting the walls because of a potential lawsuit, if not addressed. They approved of the suggested setbacks on staff's Alternates #A and #B and felt that the walls should be brought down to 8 feet and any additional fencing be constructed accordingly. They also suggested that the finish or treatment of the walls include a texture coating or plant covering and recommended that staff approve the final finish. Commissioner Livengood stated for the record that he would be voting in opposition to the request because of the discrepancies in the original building permit that was issued because he feels that approval should not be granted on walls over 6 feet. He further pointed out that staff's suggested Alternates A and B would result in either a 14 or 16 foot overall height of the wall and he objected to such a height. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-12 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-34, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig NOES: Summer_ell, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-12: 1. The retaining wall/block wall combination conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The coastal development permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property, because a setback variance has been granted. 3. The retaining wall/block wall combination conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because it does not block access to or views of the coast. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -5- (8452d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0, 87-12: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987,, shall be modified as follows: a. The existing retaining wall shall be a maximum of 8 feet in height and any additional or subsequent fencing be constructed in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, Alternative A or B. b. Aesthetic finish or treatment of the retaining wall (texture coating, plants,_etc.) shall be provided and subject to approval by Department of Community Development. 2. All conditions of Conditional Exception No. 87-34 shall apply. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-34: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The subject property is a double frontage lot with a significant grade differential. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. A retaining wall/block wall combination over six feet in height is necessary to ensure privacy, due to the slope in the rear of the lot. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-34 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. The wall will step back from the street level and will incorporate a planter area. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-34: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987, shall be modified as follows: a. The existing retaining wall shall be a maximum of 8 feet in height and any additional or subsequent fencing be constructed in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, Alternative A or B. b. Aesthetic finish or treatment of the retaining wall (texture coating, plants, etc.) shall be provided and subject to approval by Department of Community Development. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -6- (8452d) 2. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire•Department. C-2 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33 APPLICANT: JUNE AND ARTHUR ASCOLESI Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 is a request to permit the construction of a retaining wall/block wall combination 11 feet 3 inches in height along the rear of a double frontage lot located at 16931 Concord Lane, for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of fill material. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 is to permit the subject wall to encroach into the 15 foot setback that is required for all structures exceeding 42 inches in height when a rear yard abuts a street. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 29, 1987, referred the matter to Planning Commission because a number of residents expressed concern regarding the height of the wall and materials used for construction, and the City's policy for determining the maximum height of such walls. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15303 and Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The wall in question is located within the coastal zone boundaries. Prior to any action on Conditional Exception No. 87-33, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on the coastal development permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Coastal Development Permit Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 as with Resolution No. 1381 based on approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED No. 87-11 and Conditional modified by staff in accordance the findings and conditions of ALL SPEAKERS LISTED UNDER ITEM C-1 EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS, OPPOSITIONS AND APPROVALS FOR BOTH ITEMS C-1 AND C-2 SINCE BOTH ENTITLEMENTS INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN THEIR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WERE HEARD BY THE COMMISSION CONCURRENTLY (SEE ITEM C-1 FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY). PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -7- (8452d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva,• Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig NOES: Summerell, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11: 1. The retaining wall/block wall combination conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The coastal development permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property, because a setback variance has been granted. 3. The retaining wall/block wall combination conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because it does not block access to or views of the coast. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 87-12: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987, shall be modified as follows: a. The existing retaining wall shall be a maximum of 8 feet in height and any additional or subsequent fencing be constructed in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, Alternative A or B. b. Aesthetic finish or treatment of the retaining wall (texture coating, plants, etc.) shall be provided and subject to approval by Department of Community Development. 2. All conditions of Conditional Exception No. 87-33 shall apply. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The subject property is a double frontage lot with a significant grade differential. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -8- (8452d) 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. A retaining wall/block wall combination over six feet in height is necessary to ensure privacy, due to the slope in the rear of the lot. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. The wall will step back from the street level and will incorporate ' a planter area. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987, shall be modified as follows: a. The existing retaining wall shall be a maximum of 8 feet in height and any additional or subsequent fencing be constructed in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, Alternative A or B. b. Aesthetic finish or treatment of the retaining wall (texture coating, plants, etc.) shall be provided and subject to approval by Department of Community Development. 2. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe's and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. C-3 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-69 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-67 APPLICANT: CHARLES & ROSEMARY CARTER Use Permit No. 86-69 is a request to add two units to an existing duplex located at 17211-17213 Elm Street. A use permit is required because the existing structure is non -conforming for front yard setbacks and because a portion of the project is located more than 150 feet from the public right-of-way. Conditional Exception No. 86-67 is a request to permit a 12' driveway in lieu of a 20' wide driveway, and to permit a balcony to serve as private open space in lieu of a patio for one unit. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -9- (8452d) On March 18, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Use Permit No. 86-69 and Conditional Exception No. 86-67 by a vote of'4 to 1. The applicants have submitted a revised plan which shows a total of three units on the site rather than the four units originally proposed, and will require variances for a 12 foot wide driveway in lieu of a 20 foot wide driveway and for 3 foot sideyard setbacks for two garages in lieu of 5 foot sideyard setbacks. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject site is located within the Oakview Redevelopment area. Redevelopment staff has reviewed the project and is not in favor of the layout proposed by the applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial and deny the appeal based on findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Rosemary Carter, applicant, was present and available for any questions. She stated that revised plans had just been submitted and felt that they had complied with all of staff's requirements and concerns. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-69 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-67, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher,,Pierce, Leipzig; Summerell, Livengood NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED �ll PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -10- (8452d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 86-69: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of one additional units will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal to add one unit to an existing duplex for a total of three (3) units is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-67: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The narrow lot and existing building configuration preclude a wider drive aisle, and the minimum garage depth and back up area leave only three feet for garage setbacks. 2. The granting of a Conditional Exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-67 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 86-69: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated June 16, 1987, shall be the approved layout. Elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a parcel map or parcel map waiver request to legalize the existing lot. The parcel map or plat map and notice shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy of the recorded map or plat filed with the Department of Development Services prior to final inspection or occupancy. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -11- (8452d) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 4. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection. 5. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 7. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 11. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-67: 1. The site plan and floor:,plans received and dated June 16, 1987, shall be the approved layout. Elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. 2. All conditions of Use Permit No. 86-69 shall comply. SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -12- (8452d) 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. Landscaping shall comply with Article 912 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. C-4 APPEAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9; USE PERMIT NO. 87-34 APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT APPELLANT: RICHARD J. APRAHAMIAN On April 15, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Administrative Review No. 87-15 and Negative Declaration No. 87-9 by a vote of 5 to 0, and approved Conditional Exception No. 87-24 by a vote of 4 to 1. Administrative Review No. 87-15 is a request by Boureston Development in accordance with Section 9510.01 of the Ordinance Code to permit a new 122,424 square foot industrial building on a 5 acre parcel currently owned by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency located west of Beach Boulevard and south of Talbert Avenue (between the east terminus of Redondo Circle and the south terminus of Kovacs Circle). Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-24 is a request to permit a 10-1/2 foot front yard setback from Redondo Circle in lieu of the required 14-foot setback as required by Section 9510.06(b)(3), and to permit a truck well to be 50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width as required by Section 9510.12(b) of the Ordinance Code. These requests are covered by Negative Declaration No. 87-9. These actions were appealed by Triple "H" Properties (Reliable Lumber). After further analysis, it was determined by staff that a use permit is also required to permit a new industrial use within 150 feet of residentially zoned property and to permit truck doors to face a public street (Sections 9510.18(a)(1) and 9510.12). On May 27, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments declined to act on Use Permit No. 87-34 by a vote of 5 to 0 in accordance with Section 9815.3 of the Ordinance Code thereby referring the item to the Planning Commission. Therefore, Use Permit No. 87-34 has been submitted in conjunction with the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered under Negative Declaration 87-9. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The site is a 5-acre parcel within the Talbert -Beach Redevelopment area that was adopted in 1982. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -13- (8452d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's approval of Administrative Review No. 87-15, Conditional Exception No. 87-24 and Negative Declaration No. 87-9 and deny the appeal based on the findings and with conditions of approval; and approve Use Permit No. 87-34 based on the findings and with conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Both the applicant and the appellant agreed to speak 15 minutes, or of equal time, during the public hearing. Speakers for the Appellant: John Belsher, Triple H Properties, spoke in opposition to the project. He questioned the project's conformity to the General Plan and pointed out sections in the code that were overlooked by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. He urged the Commission to approve a design that would allow access from Redondo Circle, through the subject property to Talbert Avenue. He expressed his concerns with the traffic problems encountered by tenants and property owners in the area. He feels that some of the properties in the area should be condemned by eminant domain and that a focused environmental impact report should be conducted with a noise study for the area. He requested that the project be continued in order to have the developer come back with a new design for the property and if the developer refuses to revise the design he urged the Commission to deny the request. Jerry Higman, owner of Triple "H" Properties, 3401 Venture Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the City has promised two means of access off Talbert Avenue since 1983 and feels that there are definite traffic problems existing in the area and should be addressed. He said that trucks have to double park and loop through his property in order to turn around to get back onto Talbert Avenue. He further stated that Triple H does not plan to be located at this site forever and that -;one day a smaller industrial park will probably exist and if Redondo Circle is dead -ended that there will be absolutely no means of'getting traffic through thus decreasing the value of the property in excess of',one million dollars. He feels that the traffic plan as designed is inadequate and the proposed facility should be redesigned according to the Specific Plan. Christopher A. Joseph, Environmental Consultant hired by Reliable Lumber, 8848 Roslyndale, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the negative declaration should be denied and a full environmental impact report completed on the property in accordance to CEQA requirements and as recommended by the Environmental Board. He feels that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and that staff has misinterpreted the environmental data presented and failed to respond to comments. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -14- (8452d) Speakers for the Applicant: Lee Weider, representing Boureston Development, spoke in support of the project. He stated that in opposition to what the appellant has stated that the project has been conceptually endorsed by the Agency, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and is supported by'the adjacent residents. He does not feel an environmental impact report is justified and feels that the appellant has failed to prove that there will be significant impacts on the environment. He feels that all of the concerns have been addressed and that there was proper notification to adjacent property owners. He stated that as Chairman of the Environmental Board he removed himself from any conclusions made by the Board, however felt that out of 13 possible voting members that a vote of 7 to 3 to recommend that an EIR be completed without the benefit of seeing comments from the residents of Emerald Cove and issued covered by staff was not justified. He feels that if the appellant is truly interested in better street circulation they they should get together with the City and other property owners for the enforcement of parking regulations rather than insisting on an environmental impact report, which is not needed. He further stated that Boureston Development is a good developer and will provide additional parking and landscaping as well as cul-de-sac improvements on Kovacs from Talbert Avenue to the site. He also stated that the user for the completed project is a reputable manufacturer and will provide employment for approximately 200 persons. Michael Todd, representing Boureston Development, spoke in support of the project. He feels that irrelevant issues have caused a lot of confusion regarding the project and that the decision made by the City to select Boureston Development and recommend them to the Redevelopment Agency as the selected developer, out of nine RFP's received, was a good decision. He stated that the completed project would generate additional sales tax, payroll taxes and property taxes and that the Commission should evaluate this potential, additional revenue and approve the project. Public Sneakers Dean Albright, resident at 17301 Breda Lane and member of the Adhoc Committee and Environmental Board, expressed his concerns regarding noise and traffic problems. He stated that on June 11, 1987, the Board reviewed the negative declaration and established an Ah Hoc Committee to also complete a review. The committee recommended that an EIR be completed. He further stated that as a private individual, not associated or representing any Boards or Committees, that he came before the Board during the development of the senior project and stated then that there were noise problems present and needed mitigation. He feels that the noise levels will increase with this project or any expansion of an industrial project. He suggested that a complete environmental impact report be prepared on the property with the noise problems addressed. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -15- (8452d) Bob Silver, businessman at 18062 Redondo Circle, stated that if Redondo is not designed to connect with Kovacs for future businesses that the traffic congestion will be unbearable. He presented a petition and letters signed by workers in the area opposing any development which would not connect Redondo Circle with Kovacs Street. The petition stated that the connection had been promised by the City and that if it was not completed that it would increase traffic, parking problems, safety problems and circulation problems. JoAnn Robertson, 3432 Venture Drive, owner of Southwest Quilted Products, read a letter from her husband, Joe Robertson, in support of the project. She stated that her and her husband would like to continue sharing their success and tax base with the City and that there is not another site available in the City to accommodate their business and would like to continue operating at the site. Paul Weatherly, owner of Huntington Beach Auto Dismantling, 7622 Talbert, stated that street have been being proposed in this area since 1971. He has drawn plans to develop his property into an industrial parcel. If developed he would complete the street to its full width by removing his fence in conjunction with the Boureston development. He wants to recycle his property and provide a cul-de-sac. Hans Segal, owner of Hans Imports on Redondo Circle, stated that the traffic problems must be addressed if Redondo Circle does not go through. He further stated that he cannot envision how the traffic will be dealt with if Redondo Circle does not go through. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed their concerns regarding the traffic problems. They suggested that staff come up with an alternative plan which may include a turnaround or to restrict entrance into parking lots via Redondo Circle. They felt that there was an obligation to the businessmen and property owners to improve circulation by possibly angling streets or redesigning them to satisfy parking on both sides of the street and would like to see some alternatives created. Another concern was the large building being proposed next to a senior project with no assurance that the building would remain indefinitely. A suggestion was made -to move the building closer to the senior project with,a'buffer of'trees to restrict unauthorized activities behind the structure and ''security problems. The representative from the -Fire Department stated that a buffer of trees would not leave sufficient space (24 feet fire lane) to get fire trucks to the area in case of fire. Commissioner Higgins felt that if the building was moved back that the 35 foot height would visually impact the senior project. He felt that the parking area in the rear could be fenced off after work hours and on week -ends. He also felt that since the building might be occupied by other users that a condition be imposed that would preclude any large openings other than pedestrian doors in the walls facing the senior project. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -16- (8452d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 AND USE PERMIT NO. 87-34, TO THE JULY 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE CONNECTION OF THE STREETS. THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO SUPPORT THE CONNECTION OF KOVACS AND REDONDO IN SOME MATTER. The City Attorney stated that there was a law suit pending and that with a continuance that it could be answered. Commissioner Silva stated that he feels that an environmental impact report should be completed. THE STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 AND USE PERMIT NO. 87-34, TO THE JULY 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. The applicant stated that he did not wish to have his project continued and requested an action for either approval or denial. MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN Commissioner Livengood felt that since the Planning Commission needed more time to re-evaluate the entire project that a motion should be made to deny. He stated that he was very reluctant to make a motion for denial but felt there was no choice based on the material presented. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, TO DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 AND DENY USE PERMIT NO. 87-34. Staff stated that perhaps a short break should be called so that the applicant could have the full ramifications of denial pointed out to him. A BREAK WAS TAKEN WITH THE MOTION AND SECOND ON THE FLOOR. THE VOTES WERE NEVER RECORDED. After the break, Commissioner Livengood, requested that the motion be brought back onto the floor. The applicant stated that he did not understand the motion and requested that the original motion to continue be reconsidered. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -17- (8452d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, TO CONTINUE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 AND USE PERMIT NO. 87-34, TO THE JULY 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ITEM C5a AND C5b TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH ITEM C-4 C-5a REPEAL OF THE TAYLOR AND BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 73-1) C-5b PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 87-1 (TO AMEND PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 74-3) IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The Taylor and Beach Specific Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 3810 of the City Council on December 17, 1973. The site is bounded by Beach Boulevard to the east, Taylor Drive to the south, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the west and Talbert Avenue to the north. The Specific Plan was designed to address four main issues: (a) the location of a school site; (b) non -compatibility of zoning and general plan designations in the area; (c) the size and location of a park site; and (d) the closure of Taylor Avenue. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 is a request to amend Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 74-3 by realigning Redondo Circle and Kovacs Street from a connecting loop street system to two separate cul-de-sacs. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 would terminate Kovacs Street at its existing southerly terminus with a cul-de-sac on the adjacent property and would terminate Redondo Circle at its existing easterly terminus with a cul-de-sac on the adjacent property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 1382 and recommend adoption to the City Council to repeal the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan. Approve Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 and recommend adoption by the City Council. 1 I PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -18- (8452d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE THE REPEAL OF THE TAYLOR AND BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN AND PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 87-1 TO THE JULY 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood -NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-21 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-47 APPLICANT: THE YOUNG AMERICANS Conditional Use Permit No. 87-21 is a request by the Young Americans to permit live entertainment (dinner theater) within a restaurant located at 16400 Pacific Coast Highway (Peter's Landing). Conditional Exception No. 87-47 is a request to permit a variance to the required buffer between live entertainment and residential property from 200 feet to approximately 115 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15303 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Peter's Landing was originally approved by the California Coastal Commission in 1976 (P-76-8742). The project is categorically excluded as a minor development as per Section 989.5.3.13(f) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-21 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-47 based on findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Milton C. Anderson, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. Annie McQuitty, representing The Young Americans, spoke in support of the request. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -19- (8452d) David Specht, Reuban's/Tibby's Operations Manager, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that it will cause more parking congestion. William H. Kerry, Attorney for The Young Americans, spoke in support of the request. He stated that since most of the patrons that come to see The Young Americans perform come in group buses and that the bus parking is adequate at Peter's Landing. Terry Wells, representative of the Restaurant Group, spoke in opposition to'the request. He stated that the relationship of the tenants in Peter's Landing would be strained if the request was granted. He further stated that he does not agree that 33% of the patrons coming to see The Young Americans come in buses. He feels that traffic congestion will be increased. Stefan Steinberg, 16541 Tropez Lane, spoke in support of the request. He stated that he lives in the condominium project right behind Peter's Landing and does have problems with the Red Onion, however does not anticipate any problems with The Young Americans. He said that his homeowner's group has extensively interviewed The Young Americans and they have agreed to cooperate in any manner. He fully supports approval of the request. He also submitted a letter from Harold Bragg in support of the request. Jerry Frye, Manager for The Young Americans, spoke in support of the group and the request. Julia Roupp, member of The Young Americans, spoke in support of the request and urged the Commission to grant approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The Commission questioned staff regarding Section 9220.12(c) of the Ordinance Code - Noise. Since the proposed restaurant is located 115 feet from residential property to the north and separated by the Red Onion Restaurant and 175 feet from the property to the east separated by the Peter's Landing parking lot that the request would be in compliance with the code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-21 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-47, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -20- (8452d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of live entertainment (dinner theater) within Peter's Landing will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the hours of operation of the use and the nature of "family style" entertainment. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use which designates this site as Visitor Serving Commercial. 3. The proposed use will not have an adverse impact on parking at Peter's Landing because the parking for the restaurant was added at the time the retail use was deleted (Administrative Review 82-44) and valet parking service will be provided. 4. The establishment and operation of the dinner theater will not create adverse noise impacts on residential property located less than 200 feet to the north and east because the east elevation of the building contains only one kitchen door which will remain closed and patrons will exit the building on the south side after performances. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The floor plans received and dated June 1, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. The maximum occupancy of the building shall not exceed 190 persons. 3. The hours of live entertainment shall be limited to: Sunday 2 shows 3:00 PM - 9:30 PM Monday through Thursday 1 show 7:00 PM - 10:30 PM Friday 2 shows 6:00 PM - 12:00 AM Saturday 2 shows 6:00 PM - 12:00 AM 4. Live entertainment shall consist of a dinner theater use only. 5. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan, including provisions for bus parking, for the proposed restaurant use. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by Maquire/Thomas Property and the City of Huntington Beach. 6. An entertainment permit shall be submitted and approved prior to the establishment of the live entertainment within the restaurant. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -21- (8452d) 7. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Codes, including Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The proposed live entertainment shall comply with Chapter 8.40 "Noises" of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Should complaints be received regarding noises generated by the live entrtainment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to require the applicant to mitigate the noise level. 9. This conditional use permit shall run with the applicant, the Young Americans. Any change in applicant (operator) shall necessitate a new conditional use permit. 10. All doors of the restaurant shall remain closed during performances. 11. The applicant shall submit written approval of the live . entertainment use from the California Coastal Commission. 12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-7 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 87-28 APPLICANT: HOPKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Use Permit No. 87-28 is a request to permit a Round -Table Pizza Restaurant (take-out service only, no seating) and to remove a condition of approval of Use Permit No. 86-27 prohibiting restaurants at 9501 Hamilton Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the proposed project is categorically exempt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Board of Zoning Adjust'ment's denial of Use Permit No. 87-28 based on findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Due to the lateness of the hour the applicant requested that Use Permit No. 87-28 be continued until the July 7, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. He waived his mandatory processing date. P� PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -22- (8452d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 87-28 TO THE JULY 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 87-14 APPLICANT: SIGNS AND SERVICES Special Sign Permit No. 87-14 is a request for signage at a new Acura Auto Dealership located at 19131 Beach Boulevard in excess of what the Huntington Beach Sign Code, Article 961, allows. For a business with less than 400 feet of frontage, the Huntington Beach Sign Code allows one 7-foot monument sign with a maximum sign area of 60 square feet. The Acura Dealership has 330 feet of frontage. Two freestanding signs are proposed: one 7-foot monument sign with an area of 40.5 square feet and one 15.5-foot pylon sign with an area of 30 square feet. The monument sign meets code requirements. The proposed pylon sign is in addition to the monument sign. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Special Sign Permit No. 87-14 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron MacDonald, applicant, spoke in support of the request and was available for any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-14 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -23- (8452d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 of the Huntington Beach sign code will not give the applicant adequate visibility to potential customers and will result in substantial economic hardship. 2. The proposed additional freestanding sign will not adversely affect other signs in the area which are located at least 200 feet away. 3. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sign will be in keeping with the character of the adjacent shopping centers and neighborhood. 5. The proposed sign will not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations dated May 11, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. The elevations of the proposed signs dated May 11, 1987, shall be subject to Design Review Board approval. D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 ANNUAL REVIEW OF OLD WORLD OCTOBERFEST (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-20) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 21 AND MAY 5, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS) APPLICANT: WEST COAST SOCCER LEAGUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the annual review of the Octoberfest event with the attached conditions of approval. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD UNDER B ITEMS,(ORAL COMMUNICATIONS). THE PUBLIC WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE REVIEW. Lieutenant Biggs from the Police Department presented a report on the activities of last year's events. He stated that there were no major infractions and that they were satisfied with the cooperation from Old World in complying with the law. He stated that the police department approved of the security guards provided by Old World. Ronald Bevins, Attorney for West Coast Soccer League, spoke in support of Octoberfest. He stated that his client's was committed to cooperate and work with City to satisfy all concerns. He introduced a group of people in the audience representing a support group of Octoberfest, they stood up for recognition. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -24- (8452d) 1 fl There were no other persons present to speak for or against the review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF OLD WORLD OCTOBERFEST (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-20), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher., Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, 1. All applicable conditions of approval contained in Conditional Use Permit No. 83-20 shall remain in effect for this year's Octoberfest. In addition all applicable previously approved and modified conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in subsequent reviews shall remain in effect for the 1987 Octoberfest. 2. Four hundred off -site parking spaces shall be provided within 500 feet of the event. Authorization shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to the opening of the event. Temporary traffic directional signs shall be installed to direct traffic to off -site parking areas with the approval of the Police and Development Services Department. A traffic control plan to minimize Oktoberfest vehicle and foot traffic through residential (Old World) areas shall be provided which includes barricades and security people to handle this condition. 3. Parking shall be prohibited on Center Drive during the Oktoberfest. The applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to determine what method shall be utilized, at the applicant's expense, to prohibit parking on Center Drive. In addition the applicant shall provide security at Center Drive to deter Octoberfest patrons from parking at Huntington Center. 4. The westerly parking lot (on Center Drive) at Old World Village shall not be used by patrons of this year's Octoberfest. 5. Additional signage shall be placed locations approved by the traffic to the permitted parking areas for along Center Avenue, at engineer, directing patrons the Oktoberfest event. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -25- (8452d) 6. The operation of the Oktoberfest shall comply with Article 8.40, Noise Control, of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to employ a professional sound engineer at the applicant's expense, to monitor the noise levels on the premises. 7. To mitigate unnecessary noise, the use of all outside speakers by the applicant shall be discontinued during the Octoberfest event. 8. The Oldworld Owner's Association shall be included as an additional insured on the applicant's liability insurance. This shall be done at the applicant's expense. The insurance policy shall be made available to the public upon request. The amount of the liability insurance shall be approved by the City no later than June 16, 1987. The applicant shall provide liability insurance and property damage insurance, including product liability coverage, written by an insurance company acceptable to the City in the minimum limits as set by resolution of the City Council. 9. The applicant shall provide a minimum of eight (8) portable bathrooms to accommodate patrons at the Octoberfest event. The location of portable bathrooms shall be determined by the Department of Community Development. Portable bathrooms shall not be placed in the common area, with the exception of the easterly parking lot at Oldworld Village. 10. The applicant shall hire a professional security service to be approved by the City Police Department both as to the number of security personnel and the quality of the personnel hired. Police Department approval of the security serice shall be obtained in writing prior to June 16, 1987. The security service shall patrol the common area, parking lots and building at Old World Village. The number of security guards shall be such so that they are capable of controlling the grounds in the village. All employees of the security service shall be a minimum of 21 years of age. A copy of the security service program shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The following minimum security personnel will be provided at this year's event to mitigate possible problems: Wednesday and Thursday: 1 security guard Friday and Saturday: 10 to 15 security guards Sunday: 4 security guards PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -26- (8452d) 11. Location of the proposed temporary fence shall be subject to the absolute discretion of the Huntington Beach Fire Department, to assure adequate fire access lanes and access to parking. Said fence shall be removed within three (3) days after the conclusion of the Oktoberfest. The Fire Department shall also have absolute control over location and type of temporary seating to insure adequate pedestrian access and occupancy during the event. 12. The occupancy load shall be monitored by the Fire Department personnel at the applicant's expense. Seating shall be limited to a maximum of 1200 persons for regular events. Six special events shall be limited to a maximum of 1450 persons. 13. All outside activity shall cease at 12:00 midnight and all inside activity shall cease at 2:00 A.M. each night of the event. 14. All Fire, Building, Municipal and Zoning Ordinances of the City of Huntington Beach will be strictly complied with and will be applied to this event, this property and this use in the same manner as they are applied to every other event, business or property in the City. 15. Trash and debris shall be policed by the applicant each morning of the event. The applicant shall be responsible for policing the common areas, parking lots and areas immediately surrounding Old World. 16. No permanent structures shall be a part of the approval of CUP No. 83-20, and all temporary structures shall be removed no later than November 18, 1987. No structures shall be removed during the Oktoberfest event without the approval of the Director of Community Development. 17. Progress reports of compliance of the conditions of approval stated herein will be reported at the Planning Commission meetings of 10-6-87, 10-20-87, 11-3-87 and 11-17-87. 18. Conditional Use Permit No. 83-20 shall be valid for five years with an annual review to be held no later than March by the Planning Commission prior to all future Oktoberfest events to insure compliance with all conditions of approval and to mitigate any problems created from the previous year's Oktoberfest. Future Octoberfest events shall require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 19. The event may be terminated immediately by the City staff and/or the City Police Department if any of the conditions set forth in this conditional use permit approval are not complied with. This condition will not in any way limit the City or the Police Department powers should any other violations of City codes and ordinances occur. PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -27- (8452d) E. F. G. H. DISCUSSION ITEMS None PENDING ITEMS The following items were added to the Pending Items list: DUMPSITE LOCATED AT SANTA ANA RIVER AND ADAMS AVENUE - Requested that this item be addressed further. KOVACS STREET - abandoned couch and automobile MAIN POST OFFICE (WARNER AVENUE) - Second request for follow up on controversial newspapers being sold and displayed in front of post office. VISITOR BOAT SLIPS AT PETER'S LANDING - Requested report on amount of visitor boat slips at Peter's Landing. TRAFFIC LIGHT AT RUDDER STREET SCHEDULED FOR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING - Requested follow up on evaluation of traffic light at this location scheduled for next meeting of Transportation Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None 1 PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -28- (8452d) I I. ADJOURNMENT MOTION WAS MADE AT 12:20 AM BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 7, 1987, AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: • , Acting Chairman Mike Adams, ecretary Kent M. P erce, Chai man PC Minutes - 6/16/87 -29- (8452d)