Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-07APPROVED 10/18/88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7. 1988 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P A P ROLL CALL: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega P P Higgins, Bourguignon A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-1 MINUTES - August 2 and August 16, 1988 meetings A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2 AND AUGUST 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-5 Transfer of ownership of property occupied by Driftwood Beach Club and Mobilehome Park from the City of Huntington Beach to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-5, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ron Feree, 19912 Carmania Lane, addressed his concerns with the Adams Avenue/Santa Ana River dump site being used by the City of Huntington Beach for the disposal of street sweeping. He stated the problems have been occurring for nine years and that promises made by the City to remove street sweepings every two weeks and to not allow piles of sweepings over two feet in height have not been adhered to. He presented photographs of the site which depicted piles of trash/debris over 8 feet in height containing numerous other items besides street sweepings (refrigerators, boxes, trash cans, garbage, etc.) indicating that the dump site is also being used by the public. He urged the Commission to take immediate action to clean up the site. He presented a petition signed by adjacent homeowners expressing their concerns with the dump site. 1 PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -2- (1252d) 1 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 JULY 19. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 is 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 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 early September 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 20, 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 September 20, 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. 87-39, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 TO THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -3- (1252d) C-2 REVIEW OF PHASE 2 EXPANSION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SUNSET AQUATIC REGIONAL PARK APPLICANT: ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY - HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DIVISION The Orange County Environmental Management Agency -Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division, is proposing to expand the existing Sunset Aquatic Regional Park located at the western terminus of Edinger Avenue. County staff has requested an endorsement by the City of Huntington Beach of one of the three expansion proposals which include expansion of the park facilities by adding overnight RV camping facility, expanding the existing boat ramp parking which includes dry boat storage and increasing the day use parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1403 indicating the Planning Commission's position on the proposed expansion of Sunset Aquatic Regional Park and forward to the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Lloyd, 3368 Sparkler Drive, spoke in opposition to the Sunset Aquatic Park. He feels the problems have not been properly addressed by the County (water quality, traffic including joggers and pedestrians, noise). He feels top priority is being given to parking spaces for expensive toys rather than traffic and water pollution. He further stated a swim beach in the area is unacceptable and urged the Commission to deny any plan that would include overnight camping. John Delava, 16291 Countess Drive, spoke in opposition to the Sunset Aquatic Park. He attended the County meeting on July 28 as a representative from the Portofino Cove Condominium owners and does not feel that the County is addressing the potential problems with adding a recreational vehicle facility sufficiently. He objects to overnight camping at the location. Ted Rodriquez, 3406 Sparkler Drive, feels that the County should consider the protection of the environment and the needs of the adjacent residents instead of the capital gains from an overnight park/recreational vehicle facility. He said there is not enough landscaping to shield the current boat storage and that the people currently leasing the land create noise problems with loudspeakers. He feels the County is trying to create another "Newport Dunes" facility however this facility is located too close to residential. He said that "street people" are currently drifting into this area and feels a facility such as the one proposed would encourage more. Lee Skarin, 3851 Aruba Circle, feels the proposal would deteriorate the water in the area. He questioned what activities would be conducted at an aquatic park that did not contain water. He feels that the proposed aquatic park is a threat to the taxpayer's investment. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -4- (1252d) Raymond E. Ponce, 3292 Venture Drive, said that stipulations have been taken regarding security and vandalism but nothing has been mentioned about the width of the bridge servicing this particular area. He said the bridge is not safe enough to accommodate the present traffic let alone large recreational vehicles. He requested that the Commission vote to leave the area as it is now. Ronald Moss, 16241 Typhoon Lane, is concerned with the problem of policing the area. He lives on Trinidad Island where there is a 10:00 curfew that the island security has trouble enforcing. He feels with an aquatic park there will be added cyclist, mopeds, go-carts, and pedestrians. He asked what measures had been taken to alleviate problems with overflow campers. He feels that people arriving at the park and finding that the park is full will look for spaces in the adjacent neighborhood parks. He also asked what measures had been taken to accommodate campers when the harbor is dredged and the roads are closed. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A lengthy discussed ensued among the Commission. They felt a denial of any plan that included overnight camping was in order since no one spoke in favor of the proposal; that it may create security and invasion of privacy problems for existing neighborhoods; land use intensity of all three expansion alternatives as proposed will intensify land and water environmental impacts; and land use intensity of Alternate C as proposed may create undue traffic, parking and circulation problems along Edinger Avenue between Bolsa Chica Street and at the facility entrance. They further discussed recommendations to the County should they consider a plan that would prohibit overnight camping (modification of Alternative C). The recommendations included: reducing intensity of day use parking; reducing intensity of dry boat storage parking; inclusion of a harbor master site; City and County entering an agreement for police services. Commissioner Slates felt that the response to the County should be a definite "NO" because of findings made by the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1403 WHICH RECOMMENDS MODIFYING ALTERNATIVE C BY DECREASING LAND USE INTENSITY AND PROHIBIT OVERNIGHT CAMPING OR NO SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, NOES: Slates ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: Bourguignon MOTION PASSED Silva, Ortega, Higgins PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -5- (1252d) Basis for Recommendation: No one spoke in favor of the proposed overnight camping contained in Alternative A and B during public testimony at the September 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission found during the public hearing of the aforementioned project that: 1. Alternatives A and B which propose overnight camping are not acceptable, 2. The proposed overnight camping may create security and invasion of privacy problems for existing neighborhoods and should not be permitted, 3. The land use intensity of all three expansion alternatives as proposed will intensify land and water environmental impacts, and 4. The land use intensity of Alternate C as proposed may create undue traffic, parking, and circulation problems along Edinger Avenue between Bolsa Chica Street and at the facility entrance, therefore, the land use intensity should be reduced. Conditions of Recommendation: 1. Prohibit overnight parking. 2. Reduce intensity of day use parking. 3. Reduce intensity of dry boat storage parking. 4. Include a harbor master site. 5. The County of Orange and City of Huntington Beach enter into an agreement for police services. 6. If mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR No. 478 cannot be met, the project should be denied. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 88-23/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 88-24 APPLICANT: RANDALL LUMBER CO. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-23 is a request by Randall Lumber Co. to utilize a 1.25 acre site located on the Southern Pacific right-of-way on the west side of the railroad tracks located at the eastern terminus of Cedar Avenue (approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of Gothard Street and Cedar Avenue), which is owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad to unload, load and store lumber products for a period of five (5) years. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -6- (1252d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 88-24 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 88-24 and Conditional Use Permit No. 88-23 with findings and conditions of approval. A letter received September 6, 1988, from the applicant requesting continuance to the October 4, 1988 Planning Commission meeting was read into the record. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-23 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 88-24 TO THE OCTOBER 4, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-32 APPLICANT: MONTEREY PINES - TIM WOODSON Conditional Use Permit No. 88-32 is a request to establish a wholesale nursery, for the purpose of growing and distributing indoor plants to businesses and restaurants, on a .84 acre site on the south side of Center Drive, approximately 600 feet east of Gothard. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15303 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject site is located in the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project Area. Comments were received from Redevelopment staff on August 18, 1988; they have no objection to the proposed use on the Edison property. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -7- (1252d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-32 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tim Woodson, applicant, was present to answer any questions from the Commission. He stated he was in concurrence with all conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-32 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed wholesale nursery 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 the nursery operation. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-32 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed wholesale nursery operation is compatible with existing or other proposed uses in the immediate area. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed wholesale nursery operation properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Ingress and egress to the wholesale nursery will not create undue traffic problems on Center Drive. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -8- (1252d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. On -site parking for employees and delivery vehicles. b. Existing public sidewalks. c. The existing driveway shall be widened to accommodate a 27 foot radius driveway to allow safe ingress and egress of the 20 foot truck and to retain the gate setback of 16 feet (to comply with Southern California Edison requirements regarding setbacks and clearances from their towers). d. No trees along the perimeter of the site within the 10 foot by 10 foot site angle cutoff requirement. e. Vehicle turn around space on -site. f. Greenhouse, shade house and office/trailer shall be set back from any property lines a minimum of 10 feet. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits the following shall be submitted: a. A grading plan to the Public Works Department for review and must be approved. b. A revised site plan in accordance with Condition 1 above. C. If lighting is included on -site an outside lighting plan shall be submitted. High-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. The applicant shall identify all fertilizers and insecticides proposed for the maintenance and growth of all plants on -site and the method of application; chemical spraying is prohibited. 3. All chemicals used or stored at the subject site shall be approved by the Orange County Agricultural Department, as required by law. 4. The site and access road shall be maintained with gravel ground cover or other suitable material to control dirt and dust. a. An asphalt paved driveway transition from the edge of the sidewalk to approximately five feet beyond the gate shall be installed subject to specifications of the Public Works Department. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -9- (1252d) 5. The nursery operation shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 7. Any signs for the site shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. No signs shall be permitted that indicate the use is commercial or for retail sales. 8. The use shall be limited to plant/tree rentals and occasional wholesale sales only. Retail/ commercial sales to the public are prohibited. 9. This conditional use permit shall be void at the end of five years from the date of approval. Annual reviews of the conditional use permit, by staff, shall be conducted. At the end of five years, if the applicant chooses to continue the whole nursery operation, a new conditional use permit application shall be submitted. 10. The hours of operation shall be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, seven days per week. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 88-32 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 88-38 APPLICANT: LAST LION INC. - FIVE POINTS BAR & GRILL Conditional Use Permit No. 88-38 is a request for live entertainment with dancing in an existing restaurant located at 18685 Main Street, Suite H, within Loehman's Five Points Plaza. A previous conditional use Permit (No. 87-7) for Snapper's Restaurant at the same location was approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1987, which permitted live entertainment. The permit was conditioned to run with the applicant only, therefore the request for a new conditional use permit is required. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 15303, Section 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-38 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -10- (1252d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED J. J. Cuhmore, 18685 Main Street, applicant, spoke in support of the request and stated his concurrence with all conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-38 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of live entertainment (live music for dancing and listening) will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. Adequate buffering to residentially zoned properties to the west is provided by parking, drive aisle, landscape and an 80 foot wide arterial street and the proposed live entertainment substantially complies with the criteria in Section 9220.18 of the Ordinance Code. Nor will the use be detrimental to property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use which designates this site as General Commercial. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The floor plans received and dated August 19, 1988, shall be the approved layout. A final seating plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 2. Live music shall be limited to a maximum two musicians and performances shall be limited only during the following hours: Monday, Tuesday, Sunday 9:00 PM - 12:30 AM Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday 9:00 PM - 1:30 AM 3. The dance floor shall be limited to 100 square feet. The stage area shall be no larger than 8 feet by 6 feet. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -11- (1252d) 4. An entertainment permit shall be submitted and approved prior to the establishment of the live entertainment within the restaurant. 5. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building codes, including Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 6. 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 entertainment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to require the applicant to mitigate the noise level. 7. This conditional use permit shall run with the applicant. 8. The primary use of the building shall be dining and the sale of food. Dancing and live entertainment shall be a secondary use. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-6 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT N0, 88-4 APPLICANT: MCS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS Special Sign Permit No. 88-4 proposes two sign variances: (1) to permit a monument sign (7 feet high, with an area of 35 square feet) in addition to existing wall signage; and (2) allow the monument sign, in addition to the center identification, to contain tenant copy identifying six of the seven tenants in the center. The center is located at 16471 Springdale (northwest corner of Springdale and Heil). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Special Sign Permit No. 88-4 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Craig C. Hoyt, applicant, spoke in support of the sign request. He said the monument sign was needed for better visibility for tenants in the existing center. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -12- (1252d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-4 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Bourguignon NOES: Livengood, Ortega, Higgins ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None TIE -VOTE A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-4 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Slates, Bourguignon ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Granting Special Sign Permit No. 88-4 for a monument sign with multi -tenant copy in addition to existing tenant wall signs would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 3. The location and site layout plus the size of the existing building wall signage provide clear visibility of the tenant copy from public streets. The site is in a predominately residential neighborhood and the use is neighborhood commercial. C-7 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-5 APPLICANT: MCS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS Special Sign Permit No. 88-5 proposes two sign variances: (1) to permit a monument sign (7 feet high with an area of 35 square feet) in addition to existing wall sig'nage; and (2) allow the monument sign, in addition to the center identification, to contain tenant copy identifying six of the seven tenants in the center. The center is located at 21501 Brookhurst (southwest corner of Brookhurst and Hamilton). PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -13- (1252d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Special Sign Permit No. 88-5 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Craig Hoyt, applicant, spoke in support of the sign request. He said the monument sign was needed for better visibility for tenants in the existing center due to its location (on a major arterial highway) and due to setbacks from adjacent buildings. George Gemina (sic), tenant at existing center, spoke in support of the request. He said the center desperately needs the monument sign due to its location and that if approval is not granted that a lot of the businesses will have to close. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-5 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed monument sign (seven feet in height with an area of 35 square feet), with center identification and address only, will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare and safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the adjacent properties and improvements. 2. The location, site layout and design of the proposed monument sign properly adapts the proposed structure to streets, driveways, and adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The parcel is a corner lot and located on an arterial street. Site visibility from northbound motorists on Brookhurst Street is presently impaired due to reduced front setback of the buildings immediately south of the site. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -14- (1252d) 3. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on the site are properly integrated. 4. The placement of the monument sign will not create traffic problems. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated August 2, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. The proposed monument sign shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings in the center it identifies. 2. The applicant shall meet applicable Department of Public Works requirements. C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 88-6 APPLICANT: LINDA ROUAN, REPRESENTATIVE - HUNTINGTON BEACH PARTNERSHIP Special Sign Permit No. 88-6 is a request for two sign variances: (1) allow a second floor business a ground floor business identification wall sign; and (2) allow a 100.5 square foot business identification wall sign in lieu of the maximum 75 square foot (1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage) allowed. The sign and location of the sign as requested by the applicant is to provide site visibility for a second floor business. The business is located at 16390 Pacific Coast Highway (Peter's Landing). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS• The subject site is within the Coastal Zone and subject to the requirements of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 989.5.3.13(g) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the requested variance to the sign code to install a sign is considered a minor development which is categorically excluded. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Sign Permit No. 88-6 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -15- (1252d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Linda Rouan, applicant, spoke in support of the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-6, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a substantial hardship to the applicant. The location of the sign as proposed for Special Sign Permit No. 88-6 is the only viable location on the building to provide the tenant with sign visibility. 2. The proposed maximum 75 square foot awning sign as modified to be within Code required sign area will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed maximum 75 square foot awning sign will not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. Special Sign Permit No. 88-6 as modified to be within the allowable sign area and to have an opaque awning material will reduce any negative impact upon surrounding properties. 4. The proposed maximum 75 square foot sign as proposed by Special Sign Permit No. 88-6 for location to identify a second floor tenant will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plans received and dated July 15, 1988, shall be the approved location for the sign. The size of the sign lettering shall be reduced to maximum 75 square feet. 2. The blue awning (background) material shall be opaque. 3. The maximum 75 square foot internally illuminated awning sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compatibility with other signs in the center in terms of color before building permits are issued. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -16- (1252d) 4. The applicant/property owner shall submit an updated planned sign program for review and approval by the Director of Development Services for Peter's Landing commercial complex. D. ITEMS NOT PUBLIC HEARING D-1 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The Huntington Beach Water Division is requesting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-22 which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 21, 1987. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-22 is a request to construct a water booster station at the northwest corner of Clay and Goldenwest. The booster station will provide additional water pressure to the Ellis/Goldenwest area to provide adequate fire flow protection for existing and future development in the area. The project has been delayed due to problems with the design of the internal pumping mechanisms. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-22 to July 21, 1989, with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22, WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE OPTION NO. 1 (IF AT A CONTINUED MEETING THE MATTER FAILS TO RECEIVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES THE MATTER WILL BE DEEMED DENIED), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Slates, Bourguignon, Silva ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None TIE VOTE - AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -17- (1252d) D-3 RECONSIDERATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-28 APPLICANT: TEXAS LOOSEY'S A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO RECONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-28 AND AGENDIZE FOR PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 4, 1988, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Silva ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: Slates (wasn't present at meeting) MOTION PASSED Commissioner Slates was informed that he could vote on a reconsideration. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO REVOTE ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-28, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Silva ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 60-DAY REVIEW OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 (HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY AND RACQUET CLUB) 60-day review accepted by the Commission. Staff was requested to follow up on the potential conflict between the Bay Club geology report and the geology report for the Bolsa Chica area. Staff was also requested to verify the validity of the coastal development permit approved by the Commission. E-2 OIL CONSOLIDATION CONCEPT FOR THE TOWNLOT AREA A study session with public notification was requested by the Commission to be scheduled at least two weeks prior to presentation of the oil consolidation concept. PC Minutes - 9/7/88 -18- (1252d) F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES The following inquiries were added: 1. Provide status of Geology Report - Huntington Bay & Racquet Club 2. Review Springdale/Edinger Center for inadequate parking - Limited parking available due to new building construction; restaurants are being forced to close during lunch hours as a result. 3. Warner/Pacific Coast Highway Day Boat Launch - Beach Parking occurs reducing available spaces for boat launch Parking; is it Possible to post "NO BEACH PARKING" signs? 4. Update on Code Enforcement Report from Ad Hoc Committee Staff was also requested to bring the Inquiries list up to date indicating all inquiries that are still pending within the last couple of years. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Due to the heavy agenda items scheduled for the September 20, 1988 meeting, the Commission requested study sessions prior to each meeting and a special meeting to be scheduled for September 27, 1988. They requested Ascon General Plan Amendment, North -of -the -Pier Parking Structure, and Bluff -Top Park Plan be scheduled for the September 27, 1988 meeting. H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, AT 10:50 PM, TO ADJOURN TO A STUDY SESSION AT 5:30 PM, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1988, THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM; AND TO A SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AT 5:30 PM, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1988, THEN TO A SPECIAL MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Leipzig ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED MINUTESAPPROVED: — d,L.-" vo� Mike Adams, Secretary PC Minutes - 9/7/88 e G lei r Victor Leipzig, Ch r -19- (1252d)