Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-07 (7)APPROVED 8-2-88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 1988 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega A P Higgins, Bourguignon A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 5, APRIL 19 AND MAY 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AS SUBMITTED, AND CONTINUE THE MAY 3, 1988 MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH DIRECTION FOR REVISIONS, IF NECESSARY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 87-39/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A request to permit development of a subterranean parking structure with restroom facilities, community facility, concession uses, and passive recreation on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, between the Municipal Pier and Seventh Street. On September 29, 1987, staff transmitted Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to the Planning Commission for action. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the items to December 15, 1987, pending adoption by the State of Bolsa Chica State Beach General Plan Amendment. On February 2, 1988, staff requested continuance of the items to March 15, 1988, then to April 19, 1988, then to June 7, 1988, and then again to July 19, 1988, so that parking structure plans could be completed which would comply with the requirements of the State Beach General Plan. On March 21, 1988, the City Council reviewed several alternative parking structure designs and directed staff to combine features of two of them into a new concept. Staff is working on that plan and it is anticipated that all design work will be completed by late August 1988. As such, staff is requesting continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to September 6, 1988. Staff will advertise these items ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to July 19, 1988, for action. Staff will re -advertise these items ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-37, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 TO THE JULY 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED n PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -2- (0874d) C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-17/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-19 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 17, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: STERLING K. HANKAHI Conditional Use Permit No. 87-17 is a request to construct a two-story 6,868 sq. ft. church facility north of Newman and east of Van Buren. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-19 is a request for front building setback of five (5) feet in lieu of ten (10) feet and landscape planter width adjacent to parking area along Newman of five (5) feet in lieu of ten (10) feet. In addition, the applicant is requesting joint use of parking between the proposed church facility and the proposed medical office building in the adjacent parcel to the west. On May 17, 1988, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 87-17 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-19 and directed staff to work with the applicant in order to provide additional parking and to also survey parking requirements from surrounding cities. Staff has met with the applicant and the proposed church has been redesigned. Staff has also surveyed eight surrounding cities (Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, Newport Beach, Santa Ana and Westminster) and has provided each respective parking requirement for churches. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under Negative Declaration No. 82-32 which was approved by the Planning Commission for a similar project of the same size and intensity on October 5, 1982. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-17 with findings and conditions of approval and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-19 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Larry Nye, 16591 Mytinger Lane, representing Hillcrest Missionary Baptist Church, spoke in support of the request. He stated the design had been revised to allow more parking being more sensitive to the desires and issues of the neighborhood and Planning Commission. He felt that there was a conflict in language in reference to the weekly use of the church since church.use is prohibited during the week and they still had to provide 7 parking spaces for weekday uses. Commissioner Silva asked the future growth for the church congregation expanded. representative whether he anticipated and if so would they relocate when the PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -3- (0874d) Higgins Manker, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the room set aside for storage would be used as a cancer treatment room and would include approximately 14 appointments per day (by appointment only, no walk-ins) with 20 minute treatments per appointment. He stated that the use could not be transferred and that the room would contain highly electronic equipment (worth approximately $1 million). Joanne Hilton, 8251 Newman Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request. She felt that all of the issues were not being addressed and that the site still needed more parking and normal setbacks. She feels that the rules had been changed to accommodate the applicant and that new CC&R's should be drawn up. Ron Sears, 8271 Newman Avenue, opposed the linear accelerator room to allow the applicant a reduction in square footage for calculating parking. He stated that the room is 766 square feet of prime office area and doubts whether they will use it for storage. He also feels that lead -lined drywall could be used instead of concrete when constructing the walls for the room. Craig Westbrook, 8321 Noble Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that the height of the buildings is a problem because they will not be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. He feels the roof lines should be compatible with the roof lines of the surrounding homes. He also voiced concern with the added traffic. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commission expressed concern regarding parking, compatibility with the neighborhood and the joint use (church and office). They felt that church membership would increase and the congregation would outgrow the facility creating more future parking problems. Commissioner Slates stated that he had no problem with the joint use of parking or with the request of the conditional use permit, however he did feel that because of the massive structures that the setback requirements should be met. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-17 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-19 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Slates ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -4- (0874d) 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-17: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-17 for the construction of a church facility on this site with joint use of parking with the parcel located to the west and surrounded by,residential on three sides will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the church facility will 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 of building. 3. The location, site layout, bulk and height of the proposed church facility does not properly adopt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. Joint use of parking for the proposed church facility with the adjacent medical office building is not sufficient. Additional spaces for general maintenance and administrative procedures of the church, during the week, is not being provided. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 88-19 1. The granting of,Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for a five (5) foot in lieu of ten (10) foot exterior sideyard setback and a five (5) foot in lieu of a ten (10) foot planter width will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for exterior sideyard setback and planter width is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for exterior sideyard setback and planter width will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. exterior sideyard setback and planter width will be to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 87-68 for detrimental PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -5- (0874d) 5. Granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for exterior sideyard setback and planter width would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other Office Professional properties in the vicinity. 6. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the Office Professional district. C-3 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW N0, 87-29/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-68 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 17 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: J. H. HEDRICK AND CO. On May 17, 1988, the Planning Commission continued Administrative Review No. 87-29 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 and directed staff to work with the applicant in order to redesign the site plan and provide additional parking spaces on -site. Administrative Review No. 87-29 is a request to construct a 3-story 10,567 square foot medical office building on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68, is a request for an exterior sideyard setback of 5 feet in lieu of 10 feet for the office building and landscape planter width adjacent to parking along Newman Avenue'of 5 feet in lieu of 10 feet. Although the planter is actually on the adjacent lot, it is part of the common parking area necessary for this project to proceed. In addition, the applicant is requesting joint use of parking between the proposed medical office and a proposed church on the adjacent parcel to the east (Conditional Use Permit No. 87-17). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under Negative Declaration No. 82-32 which was approved by the Planning Commission for a similar project of the same size and intensity on October 5, 1982. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Administrative Review No. 87-29 with findings and conditions of approval and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 with findings THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Higgins Manker, applicant, stated that the walls in the room in question are 2 to 3 feet of concrete and that the ceilings are lined with special insulation to accommodate the proposed use. He stated that the linear accelerator room could not be reconverted. 1 PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -6- (0874d) Joann Hilton, 8251 Newman Avenue, stated that the homes in the surrounding neighborhood are setback 30 feet from the curb and that the proposed buildings should conform so that the project would be compatible. She further stated that the project is surrounded on three sides by residential. Michael Duran, architect for the project, stated that if 2 foot thick concrete was not used for the construction of the walls in the accelerator room that it would add another 200 square feet to the building. He stated that the height measurements were compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-68 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-29, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Slates ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO, 87-29: 1. The granting of Administrative Review No. 87-29 for the construction of a medical office building with joint use of parking with a church, surrounded on three sides by residential will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the medical office building will be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to limited parking on -site thereby creating a need to park on -street. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use of building due to the grade and height of the building. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -7- (0874d) 3. The location, site layout, bulk and height of the proposed medical office building does not properly adopt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. Joint use of parking for the proposed medical office building with the adjacent church facility is not sufficient. Additional spaces for general maintenance and administrative procedures of the church, during the week, is not being provided. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 87-68: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for a five (5) foot in lieu of ten (10) foot exterior sideyard building setback and a five (5) foot in lieu of a ten (10) foot planter width along Van Buren will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for reduced exterior sideyard setback building and planter width is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for reduced exterior sideyard building setback and planter width will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for exterior sideyard building setback and planter width will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 5. Granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-68 for exterior sideyard setback and planter width would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other Office Professional properties in the vicinity. 6. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the Office Professional district. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-13 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 3, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-13 is a request to amend Articles 908, 922 and 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to add new definitions, PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -8- (0874d) expand the uses permitted in commercial districts and amend required provisions pertaining to unclassified uses. Code Amendment No. 87-13 was continued from the April 19 and May 3, 1988 Planning Commission meetings to revise the draft ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Code Amendment No. 87-13 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. After discussion, the Commission suggested changes to the administrative draft for clarification. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY SLATES TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-13 AS REVISED WITH CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Due to the failure to open the public hearing the motion was void. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SLATES TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-13 AS REVISED WITH CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Amendments to Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requiring compliance with base district development standards creates minimum requirements necessary for conformance with general plan. 2. Amendments to Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code clarify regulations for child day care facilities and allow discretion of Planning Commission to impose more stringent security measures or parking requirements when deemed appropriate. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -9- (0874d) 3. Amendments to Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to include provisions to allow bed and breakfast inns creates specific requirements for evaluation and provides an opportunity to encourage the continued use of architectural or historical residences. 4. Amendments to Articles 908 and 922 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code creates a more systematic review, interpretation and entitlement process. C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-1 - VESTING MAPS APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 88-1 is a request to establish a Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance by adding Article 999, entitled "Vesting Tentative Maps," and amend related Sections 9843, 9902, 9903, 9905 and 9911. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Code Amendment No. 88-1 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Paul Picard, 1735 Main Street, said that he was not aware that this ordinance was mandated by the State. He asked if any vesting maps had been challenged in the courts or gone to the appellant stage. He requested that the Commission deny because he does not feel that it is in the long-term best interest of the City. He feels that this would force the City into agreements that would put them into compromising situations later. He would like to see the system left as is. Glenn Quinliven, 1209 Pine Street, spoke in opposition to vesting tentative maps. He feels that it would have a negative effect on the City. He feels that the scaling -down of projects would not be possible if approved. Lorraine Faber, 15271 Nottingham Lane, spoke in opposition. She objects to developers going to the State and mandating that Cities allow vesting tentative maps because the City loses control and it locks the door to small developers. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -10- (0874d) Commission Bourguignon stated when developers have vested rights to build, no one can change their minds half way through the project and that developers deserve the right to be told what they can do and allowed to do it. Commissioner Slates stated that he did not feel that a developer would want to have a vested tentative map because the front loading information is so intense. Commissioner Livengood stated that he would like to see the length of time of a vested map changed. Commissioner Leipzig felt that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and that the City would have additional control up front, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-1, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Code Amendment No. 88-1 is consistent with the intent of Section 66498.1 of the Planning, Zoning and Development Laws, which establishes State provisions for vesting maps. 2. Code Amendment No. 88-1 will not adversely effect the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. C-6 CODE AMENDMENT N0. 88-7 - RECYCLING FACILITIES APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 88-7 is proposed to amend Article 922 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to permit recycling facilities less than 500 square feet in size in commercial zones. The facility will be subject to development standards of the respective zone in which it is to be located and may be approved through the plan check process. Other recycling facilities (exceeding 500 square feet) are currently permitted in industrial zones subject to industrial standards. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -11- (0874d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Code Amendment No. 88-7 with findings and forward to City Council for adoption. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to -speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-7, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None • •, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The intent of the California Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act of 1986 will be satisfied. 2. The provisions encourage recycling and reduce litter within the City of Huntington -Beach. 3. Code Amendment No. 88-7 is not in conflict with any element of the Huntington Beach -General Plan. 11 • � 4�1y D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO, 88-2 APPLICANT: RICK CINCIS Limited Sign Permit No. 88-2 is a request to permit a change in sign face to two non -conforming signs and grant a two-year extension of the sign's use. The freestanding sign is approximately 20 feet high, 106 square feet, and internally illuminated. The roof sign is 33 feet-8 inches long by 3 feet-8 inches wide (128 square feet). Both signs advertise "Athletic X-Press Shoe Store". ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is -exempt Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Limited Sign Permit No. 88-2 for freestanding signs only with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -12- (0874d) A MOTION WAS -MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-2, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The freestanding sign will not adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the area. 3. The freestanding sign will not be detrimental to properties located in the vicinity. 4. The freestanding sign will not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and sign elevation received and dated April 19, 1988, shall be the approved sign permit with the following modification: a. The roof sign must be removed within 60 days. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 88-2 for the freestanding sign shall be valid for up to two years (until June 7, 1990). Upon conclusion of the two-year period the freestanding sign will have to conform with the City Ordinance Sign Code. 3. At the time of expiration of this Limited Sign Permit, the applicant's revised signage plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board with attention paid to architectural compatibility with the existing building and also general improvements in the area. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2,000 or its equivalent with the City and'shall be approved by the City Attorney for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance within two years from the approval date, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said sign is located and remove such sign, and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -13- (0874d) D-2 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 85-15 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 85-2 APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY AND RECQUET CLUB F. Ahadpour, owner of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club, is requesting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2. Both entitlements were approved on June 4, 1985, by the Planning Commission. In addition to Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2, Tentative Tract 11881 was approved by the Planning Commission. A final map was recorded on December 31, 1987, therefore an extension of time is not necessary for Tentative Tract 11881. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2 to June 14, 1989, with all previous conditions.of approval remaining in effect. The Commission addressed concerns regarding land use complaints received relative to the racquet club site. Complaints include: illegal boat storage, lack of landscaping, trash, etc. They suggested that a continuance be given until a the applicant responded to the complaints. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 TO THE JUNE 21, 1988 PLANNING•COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Slates, Silva ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None D-3 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-11 APPLICANT: U.S. STORAGE, INC. A request from U.S. Storage, Inc. for a one-year extension of time. The proposed mini -storage facility with,a private postal unit and uncovered recreational vehicle storage was approved by the Planning Commission on April 21, 1987. PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -14- (0874d) 1 The applicant has experienced a delay in implementing the conditional use permit due to the extensive soil testing and preparation of a procedure to remove hazardous waste from the site. A one-year extension of time is requested in order to complete the study, remove wastes, and obtain the building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-11 with all previous conditions of approval applicable. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-11, WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS APPLICABLE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Silva (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None E-1 F. .• i• Z P � •) W_• •: • _0_ ••tip A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SLATES, DIRECTING STAFF TO EVALUATE OPTION (A) AND (C) TO DETERMINE HOW POSTPONED FEES SHALL BE PAID AND THEN TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: !L AYES: Slates, Livengood, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -15- (0874d) The following items were added to the Inquiries list: 1. Newman Street speed bumps 2. Letter to Women's Club regarding complaints 3. Requested additional information on Growth Management Committee 4. Plaques for Schumacher and Pierce 5. Light spillage from multiple units onto residential projects 6. Enclosed balcony on Delaware/Main PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS .•.• • Lt .,� •,i k'o MYou None A MOTION WAS MADE AT 10:15 PM BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO ADJOURN:TO;A.5:30 STUDY SESSION ON WATERFRONT, JUNE 8, 1988, AND THEN TO A SPECIAL SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM, JUNE 8, 1988; AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING'AT 7:00 PM ON JUNE 21, 1988, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: -Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED MINUTES APPROVED: tA UC �r- Mike Ad ms, Secretary Victor Leipzig, a' PC Minutes - 6/7/88 -16- (0874d) 1* I I