Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-21APPROVED 5/16/89 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1989 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Civic Center California P A P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega P P Mountford, Leipzig A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-3 - Department of Administrative Services - City Capital Improvement Program A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SLATES, TO FIND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-3 IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-4 - Department of Administrative Services - (1) Setaside of a portion of vacant property to be added to Irby Park; (2) Sell surplus property for single family residential development. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO FIND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-4 (SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. General Plan Conformance No. 89-4 for the sale of surplus property (vacant Irby Park property) for single family residential development is not in conformance with the General Plan. The sale of surplus Irby Park property does not maximize the outdoor potential of the City. Although it is vacant now, it could be needed for future park use. 2. The sale of surplus Irby Park property does not comply with the General Plan Policy to develop and maintain high standards of visual beauty within all areas of the City. 3. The site is not suitable for development of single family residences because of its soft soil conditions. 4. The site does not need to be developed as single family residential at this time because there is adequate housing opportunities in the vicinity and open space is more important to the area to maintain a balanced residential environment. B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Allison Childers, 16622 Fountain Lane, spoke in regards to Item A-2 on the Consent Calendar (General Plan Conformance No. 89-4). She stated she represented several homeowners in her neighborhood who have concern with the sale of the property known as Irby Park, located in her neighborhood. She said numerous plans for the acreage have included a freeway route, Little League field, and 70-unit condominium project. She said the acreage is a known peat bog and has caused problems to properties in the surrounding area (cracked patios, crumbling block walls, etc.). She requested that staff keep her and other property owners in the area apprised of any development or plans which would include the acreage. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-07/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-16/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13269 (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 18, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: THE DAHL COMPANY Zone Change No. 88-07 is a request to rezone a 4.55 gross acre site from RA-O-CD (Residential Agriculture District, Combined with Oil Production, Civic District) to (Q)R1(3)-0-8,000-CD (Qualified Low Density Residential District-3 units per acre -Combined with Oil Production -Minimum 8,000 Square Foot Lot Size -Civic District) which is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Estate Residential-3 Units Per Acre. 1 PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -2- (2319d) I 1 Conditional Use Permit No. 88-16 and Tentative Tract No. 13269 is a request to permit a 12 lot subdivision for the construction of 12 Estate Residential single family dwellings. At the September 20, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that a comprehensive environmental impact report and specific plan be,prepared and adopted for the Ellis/Goldenwest quarter -section prior to acting on any subdivision request. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a specific plan and directed the applicant to prepare an environmental impact report. Staff prepared a revised Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and supervised the preparation of a comprehensive environmental impact report for the entire 160 acre quartersection. Staff presented the Revised Draft Specific Plan at the March 7, 1989 Planning Commission Study Session and the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to set the Draft Specific Plan for public hearing on March 21, 1989. The applicant has agreed to continue these items to the April 4, 1989 Planning Commission meeting in order to focus the discussion on March 21, 1989, to the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Staff is processing the project through Subdivision Committee and will be prepared to make a recommendation on this project on April 4, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Zone Change No. 88-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 88-16 and Tentative Tract No. 13269 to the April 4, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-16 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13269 TO THE APRIL 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland, Williams (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -3- (2319d) C-2 ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-54 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-97 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: PROPERTY VENTURES This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1989, to a Study Session on March 7, 1989, and public hearing on March 21, 1989. The Planning Commission raised several issues for further study and clarification. They include: economic considerations, ingress to the parking structure, floor -to -ceiling height in parking structure, future needs assessment from OCTD, parking ratios for office uses, landscaping, Gothard-Hoover Connection, condition of approval regarding installation of sewer main in Heil Avenue, provision of an on -site deli/cafeteria, and impacts on Goldenwest College parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve Zone Change No. 87-2 with findings and forward to City Council for adoption; and B. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-54 with Special Permit and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-96 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Johns,.representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said Goldenwest College did not have any problems with the proposal and that is why they had not responded. He introduced the traffic engineer on the project. H. Victor Sucher, Jr., Seawind Village, addressed his concerns regarding the traffic study completed on the project. He said the study did not address local impacts on Huntington Village Lane nor the circulation. Larry Greer, Traffic Engineer, presented data resulting from the study. He said the intersection at Huntington Village Lane and Center Drive was part of the study as well as the exploration of additional exits to Center Drive and access for freeway destined travelers. Sally Gipple, 15555 Huntington Village Lane, said she feels traffic circulation studies should be completed to obtain solutions to an already existing problem. Mel Hoefflinger, 15555 Huntington Village Lane, said there is currently a traffic problem in the area with heavy impact to Huntington Village Lane. He feels a traffic signal is needed at McFadden and Huntington Village Lane. He does not feel that the traffic study addressed all of the problems. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -4- (2319d) �J I - Fil The Planning Commission discussed concerns related to intensity of the use, traffic impacts, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and accessibility of the parking structure. It was agreed that a transportation center itself should help to mitigate existing and future traffic demand along arterials in the vicinity by providing a centrally located mass transit center, however with the addition of the proposed multi -story office building to the plans it created potential traffic problems for the project. The Commission did not feel a multi -story office building on the site was prohibitive, however, felt the Hoover-Gothard extension should be completed before assessing the traffic situation in the area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-54 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-97, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, NOES: Mountford ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO INCLUDE ADDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TO THE MOTION TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-54 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-97, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, NOES: Mountford ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig FINDINGS FOR DENIAL --ZONE CHANGE NO 87-2: 1. The proposed zone change from CF-E(R1), Community Facilities - Education with base zone of Low Density Residential, to C4-MS, Highway Commercial -Multi -Story, is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use Development. 2. The proposed zone change from CF-E(Rl), Community Facilities - Education with base zone of Low Density Residential, to C4-MS, Highway Commercial -Multi -Story, is not compatible with Goldenwest College and residential development to the east. 3. The granting of Zone Change No. 87-2 to allow for multi -story structures on the subject property prior to completion of the Hoover-Gothard Extension precludes an assessment of potential circulation and traffic impacts to surrounding properties. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -5- (2319d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NO, 87-54: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-54 for an office building and parking structure prior to completion of the Hoover-Gothard Extension prevents proper assessment of potential impacts to the surrounding developments. 2. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed office building and parking structure do not properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 3. The proposed use may not compatible with surrounding developments, including'Old World, One Pacific Plaza and Goldenwest College. 4. The single access to the parking structure for the proposed office may create an undue traffic problem due to the uncertainty of when the Hoover-Gothard Extension will occur and what actual future traffic conditions will be on Gothard when realigned. 5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-54 for an office building and parking structure will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The requested special permit to allow a single access point to a 580 space parking structure does not promote an effective circulation pattern and parking layout and may be negatively impacted following the Gothard Street realignment and Hoover Street extension. 2. The requested special permit will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, and detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general, and may adversely affect circulation on the site or adjacent streets. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL _-CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87- 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for reduced setbacks is not necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-96 for reduced setbacks will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming property or improvements in the area. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -6- (2319d) C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-1/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-2/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-8 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: RICHARD B. ARMSTRONG Conditional Use Permit No. 88-57, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-1 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-2 are requested to expand the existing 1,627 square foot Taco Bell Restaurant by adding a 150 square foot drive-thru window and expanding the parking area onto an adjacent 50 foot wide lot with a variance request for reduced parking and landscaping requirements. The restaurant is nonconforming because of the structures' reduced setback along Ninth Street; thus any expansion requires approval by the Planning Commission. Special Sign Permit No. 88-8 is a request to modify the existing nonconforming 15 foot high pole sign by replacing the existing sign with a 33 square foot rectangular sign. The variance is requested because the modified sign exceeds the height and size requirements of the Downtown Design Guidelines (maximum height is 6 feet and maximum area is 15 square feet). The application was continued from the February 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting in an effort to allow sufficient time for staff and the applicant to resolve the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the closure of the Pacific Coast Highway drive approach, the drive-thru speaker system, trash and the use of the alley. In addition, the applicant presented a new plan (Attachment No. 1) at the meeting which had not been analyzed by staff and the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-57 and Coastal* Development Permit No. 89-2 for Alternative B, as modified by staff with findings and conditions of approval, and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-1 with findings. B. Approve Special Sign Permit No. 88-8, as modified by staff, with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ruth Bailey, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. She said the site will be improved with the drive-thru proposal with landscaping upgraded and signage upgraded. She said the applicant is willing to install a hand-held order phone to mitigate noise. She requested approval to allow the pole sign until Pacific Coast Highway is widened or the bus stop removed. Dick Armstrong, applicant, addressed some of the concerns expressed. He stated the billboard will come down immediately, the menu board has been relocated to cut down on noise, the access on PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -7- (2319d) Pacific Coast Highway will be closed. He was concerned with the condition regarding screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. He also said that he would like extended hours during the summertime, perhaps.to add breakfast items to their menu. Mike Thompson, 147 Via Ardine, owner of property adjacent to site, addressed his concerns with the project. He stated his objection to using the alley for access to the site. He said the alleys were not designed for a high -volume commercial operation because of their width. Besides the alley containing two telephone poles, he said when trash trucks are in the alley they prohibit any access at all; the conditions are very dangerous. He is also concerned with the noise emanating from the site. He said even though the order menu has been moved and the applicant agrees to hand-held order phones there will still be noise from the cars, car radios, etc. He also stated concern with the pollution that would be created from the automobiles with a drive-thru situation. Scott Kimball, 3226 Anne,_Circle, addressed his concerns with the, proposed project. He feels the site is too small to allow a drive-thru operation. He said what is developed on this site now will be there for 25 years and urged the Commission to deny. Russ Paxson, 115 Ninth Street, said the trash problems have been cleaned up since the last meeting, however he is concerned that it will continue. He expressed concerns regarding the 2:00 AM closing, the noise generated from Taco Bell, and the use of the alley for access. He suggested speed bumps be installed in the alleys. Phil Gilbert, representing the owner, said he feels the project will be beneficial to the site with landscaping improvements and signage improvements. He further stated that alleys are abused no matter what they allow. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that Taco Bell was making an effort to be a "good neighbor". It was suggested that "speed bumps" be considered in the alley. A condition requiring an annual review was also suggested. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-57 (ALTERNATIVE B) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 88-8 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-1 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Bourguignon, NOES: Williams ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -8- (2319d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-57: 1. The proposed Taco Bell expansion will be compatible with adjacent properties and uses because as modified by staff's proposal will provide adequate parking, landscaping and reduce circulation conflicts on -site. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the Taco Bell Restaurant expansion will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. On -site parking and circulation as modified by staff's proposal for the Taco Bell expansion is adequate and does not have the potential of creating a congestion or circulation hazard. 4. Ingress and egress to the Taco Bell site as modified by staff's proposal does not have the potential of creating additional traffic impacts to the intersection along Pacific Coast Highway and Ninth Street. 5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-57 for the expansion of the Taco Bell Restaurant will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed Taco Bell expansion as modified by staff's proposal properly adapts the proposed structure to the streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 7. The combination and relationship of the existing Taco Bell Restaurant with the addition of the drive-thru window and lane as modified by staff's proposal on -site is properly integrated. 8. The access to and parking for the proposed Taco Bell expansion as modified by staff's proposal does not create undue traffic because it provides adequate parking, on -site circulation and landscaping. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89 2: 1. The proposal as recommended by staff is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, Coastal Element and Scenic Highways Elements. 2. The proposal as recommended by staff is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act by providing a drive-thru restaurant facility for beach and public recreation accessibility. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -9- (2319d) 3. The Taco Bell expansion as modified by staff's proposal and as proposed by Coastal Development Permit No. 89-2 conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. 4. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-2 as modified by staff is consistent with the zoning designation of the Downtown Specific Plan -District One. 5. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-2 at the time of completion will provide infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP by providing a drive-thru window to an exiting restaurant. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-1: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for reduced landscaping requirement is not necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-1 for reduced landscaping requirement will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming (land, property, or improvements) in the neighborhood. 4. The conditional exception (variance) for reduced landscaping requirement is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Visitor -Serving Commercial. 5. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9608(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide landscaping along public right-of-ways. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 88-8: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 and the Downtown Design Guidelines will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. 2. The proposed freestanding pole sign will adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed freestanding pole sign will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign; and will not be compatible with the surrounding area. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -10- (2319d) 4. The proposed freestanding pole sign located at the intersection of Ninth Street and Pacific Coast Highway will obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-1 for reduced landscaping requirements will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, Alternative "B" as modified by Planning Commission providing ingress alley access only, shall be the conceptually approved layout (see attached map). 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. b. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. c. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: (a) Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. (b) Revised site plan and elevations as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. (c) All signage as proposed. (d) Landscaping plan. e. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -11- (2319d) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. c. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. d. An irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement between the subject site and adjacent parcel shall be submitted. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. Said instrument shall be valid for the life of the restaurant use with the drive-thru lane. e. Provide written evidence that the applicant has negotiated a date of removal of the existing billboard. £. The applicant shall submit an alternative speaker system for approval by staff. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment on existing and new parts of the building shall be screened from three-story views to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the, building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a separate rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing .screening and must be approved. 4. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. Close the existing drive approaches along Pacific Coast Highway to Public -Works standards. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -12- (2319d) b. Submit a revised plan to be reviewed by the Public Works Department to include the following: (1) A 2 foot-6 inch alley dedication is required as determined by the Public Works Department. (2) Sidewalk improvements are required along Pacific Coast Highway. (3) A 27 foot minimum radius type driveway is required at the Ninth Street drive entrance. (4) Improve the alley (to the center line of the alley) adjacent to the subject property as deemed necessary by Public Works Department. (5) A grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 5. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. b. Block wall along south property line (hotel) must be 6 foot above grade of oil pad and oil tanks. c. Screen wall must be 6 feet above grade for oil well adjacent to the parking area. d. Block wall separating trash bin and the'oil tank must be minimum 6 feet high. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. Alf 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. 8. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 9. The hours of operation shall be limited to between: 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM (10:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight from May to September) 10:00 AM to 12 Midnight (10:00 AM to 1:00 AM from May to September) Sunday thru Thursday Friday and Saturday PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -13- (2319d) 10. The proposed menu ordering system shall be non -audible after 8:00 PM. 11. Prior to final building permit approval for the drive-thru addition, the following shall be completed: a. The major identification sign shall be removed and replaced with a maximum 7 foot high monument sign with maximum 33 square feet,of sign area. b. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. c. The billboard shall be removed. d. 'Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 12. 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. 13. This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property,, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 14. A review of'the use shall be conducted within one (1) year to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance'Code. 15; This conditional use permit shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. C-4A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 88-2 FOR THE PROPOSED ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE CHANGE NO, 89-1 APPLICANTS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH/DAHL CO./WESCO In July, 1988, in response to several tentative tract applications received for the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection, Planning staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required prior to approval of any future tracts. On September 20, 1988, Planning Commission confirmed this decision by continuing the Dahl Company's Tentative Tract Map Application No. 13629 (for a five acre tract within the quartersection) until completion of the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -14- (2319d) DEIR No. 88-2, once certified, is intended to be utilized for the aforementioned Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan zone change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2 (DEIR No. 88-2) by adopting attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1414 with Statement of Overriding Considerations and forward DEIR No. 88-2 to the City Council for their adoption and certification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Francine Holthau, 6862 Hitching Post, said she was in favor of low residential density because of the earthquake faults on the property. Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, 2120 Main Street, stated that he felt the environmental impact report is more than adequate and addresses all items in the Specific Plan. David Dahl, Dahl Co., said he felt the environmental impact report was adequate. He feels, however, that a few of the mitigation measures are site specific and should only be required if present on the property or deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. Eliza Dixon, representing Wesco, said she felt the environmental impact report was adequate. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the environmental impact report and the public hearing was closed. Mitigation measures and site specific mitigations were discussed. Staff was requested to change all of the shalls to may in the report and amendments were made. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY AS ADEQUATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-2 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1414 WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland, Mountford (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION - DEIR 88-2: 1. DEIR 88-2 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as amended June 1986, and all State and local guidelines therefore. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -15- (2319d) 2. DEIR 88-2 adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan zone change and is found to be certifiable. 3. EIR No. 88-2 was presented to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project. 4. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings have been made for all significant effects identified in DEIR No. 88-2. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations is being made as the economic and social benefits of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan zone change outweigh the zone change's unavoidable adverse impacts. C-4b ZONE CHANGE NO 89-1/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 88-2) Zone Change No. 89-1 is a request to rezone the 160 acre quartersection bounded by Ellis Avenue, Edwards Street, Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street from a mix of zoning (RA -Residential Agriculture/LU-Limited Use/M1-Light Industrial/Q-R1-Qualified Low Density Residential) to Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Code Amendment No. 89-1 is a request to amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to add the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to Article 930. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2 was prepared to assess the environmental impacts relative to Zone Change No. 89-1 and Code Amendment No. 89-1. Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2 represents a detailed analysis of the project, project -related impacts, alternatives and measures intended to adverse environmental impacts. SPECIFIC PLAN: If adopted by the City Council, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan will be the zoning document which will contain development guidelines and standards for the entire 160 acre quartersection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Zone Change No. 89-1 and Code Amendment No. 89-1 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Don Jankowiak, 6711 Shetland Circle, addressed his concerns. They included the short-term displacement of horses, size of the trails (he feels they are too narrow), buffer areas (he would like to see 8 feet instead of 5 feet). He also said he would like to see $2,000 per home put into a bond for an eventual equestrian facility. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -16- (2319d) Mike Davis, 6711 Shire Circle, spoke in support of the Specific Plan. He said values have gone up in the area however there are traffic problems. Elmer Olson, 110 E. Electric Avenue, requested his land be zoned the same as the proposed. Mary Bell, 20292 Eastwood Circle, spoke in support of the zoning. She had no problems with the trail and feels it reinforces the equestrian theme of the area. She feels the Specific Plan will be an asset. John Bolvin, 6671 Shire Circle, said the topography of the area has been altered, the density is increasing, and wants the quality of life protected. He would like to see the specific plan adopted before any development is permitted. He requested that both Quarterhorse Lane and Saddleback Lanes be left as is and not made through streets, he said if they are, safety will be jeopardized. Francene Holthaus, 6862 Hitchingpost, said there is already too much traffic on her streets. She feels Saddleback is going to be used as a short cut. She is concerned with the safety of the children in the area and stated the City will be held liable if there is an accident. John Fisher,, 6692 Shetland Circle, said circulation is his main concern. He asked what the procedure was for closing a street (namely: Trotter Drive). Carrie Thomas, 6642 Trotter Drive, said she feels a quasi -public park is necessary in the area to provide a place for the kids to play safely. She would like to see developer fees go towards a park. She would also like to see a rest -stop along the equestrian trails. Bill Holman, 2120 Main Street, expressed concerns with minor wording in the specific plan. He said 156 mitigation measures are hard to comprehend in a short time, however supports approval of the plan. Larry Geisse, stated the homeowners do not want the streets to go through and they don't want any gates. Urged the Commission to listen to the people. He also expressed concern with the circulation. Diana Boom, 6712 Shire Circle, suggested a knock -down gate be .installed at the end of the streets. She would like to see a designated area for a future park. She also requested notification of the next meeting and said it would be helpful if reports were available prior to the meeting. Darryl Boom, 6712 Shire Circle, expressed concern with the traffic in the area. He said two girls have already been killed on the arterials riding bikes. He also stated he would like to see a community park. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -17- (2319d) Gerald Chapman, 6742 Shire Circle, spoke in opposition to his home being circled (3 sides) by equestrian trails and taking 7,600 square feet of his property. Eliza Dixon, Wesco, stated she would like to see the aggregate side - yard setback reduced to 15 feet rather than 20 feet. She feels wider homes are more aesthetically pleasing. David Dahl, Dahl Co.,' also expressed concern with minor wording in the specific plan however urged Commission to approve. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested that a special meeting be set for further discussion on the specific plan; however most felt that the concerns should be discussed at tonight's meeting. Most of the Commission felt that the specific plan, except for minor language, was complete. To provide for a future quasi -public park it was suggested that a special account for in-lieu/park fees or land dedication for a future park should be set up. As a response to the public testimony, the,following straw votes were taken by the Commission: STRAW VOTE MOTION MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO REDUCE SIDEYARD SETBACKS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig STRAW VOTE MOTION FAILED STRAW VOTE MOTION MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY SLATES, TO NOT SURROUND ONE LOT ON THREE SIDES WITH EQUESTRIAN TRAILS (CHAPMAN'S PROPERTY), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None TRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO INSTALL KNOCK -DOWN BARRIERS AT ENDS OF STREETS (QUARTERHORSE AND SADDLEBACK) AND TO ALLOW EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -18- (2319d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-1 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 TO A SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 27, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams NOES: Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-1 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 WITH FINDINGS, AS AMENDED, AND FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None • •� A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, FOR MINUTE ACTION TO SET UP A SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR IN-LIEU/PARK FEES OR LAND DEDICATION FOR A FUTURE QUASI -PUBLIC PARK WITHIN THE QUARTERSECTION, AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None [�11-61#0111 0VX11f ZM$,I FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO 89-1: 1. The proposed zone change for the 160 acre quartersection from a mixture of RA, Residential -Agricultural (108 acres), Q-R1, Qualified Low Density Residential (30 acres), Ml, Light Industrial (2 acres), and LU, Limited Use (20 acres) to Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan will be compatible with surrounding residential and industrial land uses based on the general provisions of the document which addresses permitted uses, circulation and community theme. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan allows residential uses, equestrian uses, maintains open space corridors and allows for oil operations., PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -19- (2319d) a. Section 3.4.2.5, Housing, of the General Plan states that a variety of housing types shall be provided. The proposed Specific Plan allows for Estate Residential with equestrian amenities which creates a new type of residential housing within the City. b. Section 3.4.2.3, Natural Resources, of the General Plan states that the City shall provide for the proper development, preservation and use of the City's natural resources for maintaining natural topography and developing greenbelts and preserving natural areas of vegetation where possible. The Specific Plan preserves significant topographical features and minimizes alteration of the natural -.terrain and preserves open space corridors in the swale areas to accommodate recreational trails, master plan sewer facilities and drainage from up to 100 year storm. C. Section 3.4.2.2, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, of the General Plan discusses capitalizing outdoor environmental potential of the City by developing a system of trails and maximizing the preservation of historic, scenic, geological, topographical and archaeological sites. In addition to maintaining and preserving the significant topographical features of the area, the Specific Plan provides for equestrian uses. 3. The proposed zone change carries out the General Plan Land Use Designation of Estate Residential for the Ellis-Goldenwest area by adding housing variety, increasing spaciousness, and enhancing the open space character of the area. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO 89-1: 1. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the intent of Section 65450 of the Planning. Zoning and Development Laws which establishes State provisions for Specific Plans. 2. Code Amendment No. 89-1 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-10/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-8 APPLICANT: WEST COUNTY FAMILY YMCA Conditional Use Permit No. 89-10 is a request to expand the existing nonconforming 2,400 square foot YMCA facility located at 7262 Garfield Avenue by adding 2,600 square feet of temporary modular offices pursuant to Article 965 (Nonconforming Provision) Section 9652(b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -20- (2319d) Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-8 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 965 (Nonconforming Provisions) in the following area: 1. Section 9652(b)(3) specifies that regardless of any and/or all alterations, enlargements, or additions, the floor area shall i not exceed more than ten percent (10%) of the floor area the structure contained at the time it was classified as nonconforming. The applicant is requesting to add 2,600 square feet of modular office area. An increase of approximately 98 percent beyond that allowed pursuant to code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-10 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-8 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Janice Patrick, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. She requested deletion of Condition 3.a, 3.b and 3.c. She said, since they will be leasing on a month -to -month basis, they cannot incur the expense. Jim Schenold, Chairman of the Board, 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 MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-10 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-8 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1. The proposed nonconforming expansion of the existing YMCA facility, with conditions of approval will be compatible with the adjacent properties and uses by providing an architectural compatible building which meets the development standards of the Residential -Agriculture zone. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -21- (2319d) 2. The establishment, facility expansion not be detrimental or residing in the of the property an d maintenance and operation of the YMCA as a temporary administrative building will to the general welfare of persons working vicinity and not detrimental to the value improvemens in the neighborhood. 3: On -site parking and circulation is adequate and does not have the potential of creating a congestion or circulation hazard. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-10 for the expansion of the nonconforming YMCA facility as a temporary use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach., 5. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed YMCA expansion subject to the conditions imposed adapts the proposed structure to the streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-8: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district. The parcel abuts an arterial highway and contains an alley along the rear. 2. The granting of a conditional exception to expand beyond the allowable 10 percent of existing floor area is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-8 to expand beyond the allowable 10 percent of existing floor area with conditions imposed will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming land and property in the neighborhood. 4. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9652(b)(3) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general,purposes or intent of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the Huntington Beach General Plan. 5. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception :(variance) permit is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delays. 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 13, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Provide the required 20 foot rear yard setback from ultimate alley dedication. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -22- (2319d) 1 b. Provide minimum 20 feet building separation or attach the proposed temporary modular office to the existing building and provide a minimum 3 foot-9 inch wide breezeway area with handicap accessibility in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Revised site plan and elevations as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. b. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. C. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. d. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. e. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. f. The site plan shall indicate all existing trees on site. Every effort shall be made by the applicant to save any tree that may be affected by the YMCA expansion. g. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. h. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall . include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -23- (2319d) i. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. j. Dedicate 2 feet on Garfield Avenue and 5 feet on the alley. k. Submit a grading plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. 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. 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-10 shall be effective for a maximum period of five years. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-10 shall be non -transferable. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit _No. 89-10 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-6 APPLICANT: Erdem Denktas Conditional Use Permit No. 89-4 is a request for live entertainment (2 to 3 member band, non -amplified) without dancing in an existing 2,500 square foot restaurant located at 16871 Beach Boulevard. The request is pursuant to Section 9220.12 (Dancing/Live Entertainment) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-4 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -24- (2319d) 1 Ll A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-4, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None W10#101M FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of live entertainment (live music for listening without dancing) 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 a drive aisle, parking, landscaping and approximately 80 foot wide tennis courts. 2. The proposed live entertainment substantially complies with the criteria in Section 9220.12 of the Ordinance Code. 3. The use will not be detrimental to property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 4. The combination and relationship of one use (live entertainment without dancing) to another use (restaurant) on site are property integrated. 5. The proposal is consistant 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 February 1, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Live music shall be limited to a maximum three (3) musicians and performances shall be limited only during the following hours: Monday, Tuesday, Sunday 9:00 PM to 12:30 AM Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday 9:00 PM to 1:30 AM PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -25- (2319d) 3. The stage area shall be no larger than 50 square feet as shown on the submitted plans. 4. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building codes, including Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 5. 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. 6. This conditional use permit shall be non -transferable. 7. The primary use -of -the building shall be dining and the sale of food; live entertainment shall be a secondary use. 8. An entertainment permit shall be submitted and approved prior to the establishment of the live entertainment within the restaurant. A copy of said permit shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to be included in the Conditional Use Permit No. 89-4 file. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-4 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 10. This conditional -use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 11. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-4 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THE REMAINING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED None 1 PC Minutes*- 3/21/89 . -26- (2319d) I,. 1 .y olze VUV7. E-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO .88-2a - Applicant: -West Coast Soccer League - Annual Review of Octoberfest E-2 CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT NO. 87-5 - Applicant: Update traffic study E-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-20 - Applicant: Six month review F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None None None I. ADJOURNMENT FHP Hebrew Academy The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 AM to the next regularly scheduled meeting, Tuesday, April 4, 1989, at 7:00 PM. APPROVED BY: IL i Mike Adams, Secretary P anning_ mmissio a' an PC Minutes - 3/21/89 -27- (2319d)