Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-19APPROVED 8/4/92 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM GLASS ROOM ORDINANCE REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff P P Newman, Leipzig A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (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 Items B-7 and B-8 were brought forward and acted upon at this point, however, the minutes will reflect actions in their original order. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO 92-4/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-1 (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 21, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach APPELLANTS: Roy Richardson, Planning Commissioner, Roger Denney, Attorney for Orange County Bicycle Coalition LOCATION: 6.6 acre linear parcel below the bluffs on the south side (ocean side) of Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and llth Street The Zoning Administrator's approval of a 412 space public beach parking lot below the bluffs on Pacific Coast Highway has been appealed by two different parties. The proposed parking lot is located on an abandoned oil service road on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and llth Street. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on April 21, 1992. Public Works staff was directed to redesign the project to eliminate potential impacts between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians and the Planning Commission continued the item to June 3, 1992. Since the April 21, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, Public Works staff has been informed by the state of an opportunity to obtain a $125,000 grant for the construction of the project if the environmental review is approved before May 29, 1992. Public Works has, therefore, expedited their redesign and has requested the Planning Commission to review the redesign for action on May 19, 1992. The revised beach parking lot layout separates pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the proposed parallel parking along the sea wall and replacing it with a pedestrian boardwalk and routing bicyclists through a tunnel beneath both the entrance and exit to the lot. This design also mitigates potential view impacts from third story residential units across Pacific Coast Highway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending and uphold the Zoning Development Permit No. that the Planning Commission deny the appeal Administrator's approval of Coastal 92-4 and Negative Declaration No. 92-1. F-� C Minutes - 5/19/92 -2- (4029d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Michael R. Mott, Midway City, stated his concern regarding the safety of the deceleration lane. Sid Spinak, 318-15th Street, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Spinak stated that this beach should be kept a residents beach. He also said the parking lot may bring property values down. John Walt, 1400 Pacific Coast Highway, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Walt presented a slide show to the Commission. Don Harvey, 2039 Pt. Weybridge, Newport Beach, Orange County Bike Coalition, stated his concern regarding the interaction between the pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. His basic concern is safety. Rick Anderson, 5092 Bayonne Circle, Irvine, says the revised plan is better than the original but the five (5) MPH speed limit is unrealistic. Lynne Johnson, 1400 Pacific Coast Highway, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Johnson stated that this project and the widening of PCH does not follow the concept of "Village Concept". Walter Long, 4931 Charlene Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Long stated that the area was a nice place to look at not a nice place to park your car. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Newman commended the speakers for presenting a compelling argument and opening some eyes. Commissioner Newman stated that after a long effort to beautify the beach we should not trash it with a parking lot. Other Commissioners felt that although safety issues had been addressed on the revisions the need for additional parking is unnecessary at this time. The Commission also had concern regarding the monies that had already been dispursed by Caltrans for this project. They questioned whether the monies would be negated by Caltrans, would the city have to pay it back or could they use the monies elsewhere for a parking project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARDSON, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-1 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-4 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Leipzig NOES: Dettloff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee, Bourguignon MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -3- (4029d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-4: 1. The proposed public beach parking lot development does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. While the Coastal Element encourages public access to the beach, the proposed plan does not provide parking in an aesthetically pleasing manner and has the potential to create conflicts between vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 92-4 is not consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Downtown Specific Plan, District 11 or other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property because the design of the project lends itself to potential conflict between vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed public beach parking lot development can not be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. Provisions for sewer and water lines to serve restroom and concession facilities are not proposed at this date and it is uncertain if and when the proper infrastructure can be provided. B-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO._91-1/ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2: APPLICANT: McDonnell Douglas Realty Company LOCATION: Approximately 62 acres at the northwest corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue (see attached map) General Plan Amendment No. 91-1 is a request by McDonnell Douglas Realty Company to redesignate 62 gross acres from General Industrial to four (4) different land use categories which are: - Medium Density Residential - Medium -High Density Residential - High Density Residential - General Commercial Zone Change No. 91-1 is a request to rezone 62 gross acres from M1-A-MS (Restricted Manufacturing/Multi-Story) to a combination of: - R2 (Medium Density Residential) - R3 (Medium -High Density Residential) - R4 (High Density Residential;/Multi-Story) - C4-MS (Highway Commercial;/Multi-Story) PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -4- (4029d) The Planning staff is recommending denial of General Plan Amendment No. 91-1 and Zone Change No. 91-1. The staff is recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 because it considers all environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of General Plan Amendment No. 91-1 and Zone Change No. 91-1 primarily because of the issues addressed in the environmental impact report, which include increased traffic congestion, increased noise levels and degradation in regional air quality. The staff is also recommending denial of this request because of the loss of job opportunities within the existing industrial area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Tom Motherway, 10482 Broadview P1, Santa Ana, representing applicant, presented a slide show to the Commission. Steve Sasaki, 680 Landsdorf Drive, Ste. 222, Fullerton, representing applicant, gave a brief synopsis of the traffic study that had been prepared for this project. Ernesto M. Vasquez, 695 Town Center, Suite 300, Costa Mesa, representing applicant, presented an architectural overview. Mr. Vasquez explained the current underutilization of the property. Waltern Hahn, 19472 Sierra Chula, Irvine, representing applicant, presented the affordability index for the proposed project and an overview of the residential feasibility. Tom Motherway, 10482 Broadview Place, Santa Ana, representing applicant, presented the benefits to industry this project would have. Don Platt, 6106 Larchwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the request because of concerns over increased traffic. Davitt Akers, 6431 Viking Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. His concerns were the threat to the quality of life for surrounding residents and increase in traffic. Reginal A. Jones, 6401 Larkspur Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Jones was concerned with additional children overcrowding schools, and the loss of permanent jobs that will occur when industrial is taken away. Nancy Balogh, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Balogh was concerned with the harmful impacts the proposed project would have on air quality. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -5- (4029d) Glenn A. Grosch, 6242 Royal Oak Drive, spoke in opposition because of concerns with increased traffic. He also stated he agreed with all previous speakers points of opposition. Aaron A. Jones, 6082 Glenwood Drive, spoke in opposition. Mr. Jones was concerned that the environmental impact report was inadequate, that the townhomes being built would decrease the value of their homes and would increase traffic. Guy Ruggeri, 6081 Vane Circle, spoke in opposition to the request because of the points previous speakers brought out. Dave Sullivan, 4162 Windsur Drive, H.B. Tomorrow, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Sullivan stated that the city needs to maintain industrial zoning. Alan Dauger, 3582 Venture Drive, spoke in opposition to the request and stated that we needed to maintain our industrial areas. Dale Svension, 5751 Spa Drive, spoke in opposition to the request, stating his concern with four-story houses shadowing his home. Bill Iwanyshyn, 14401 Chateau Lane, spoke in opposition to the request stating his concern with negative school impacts, job elimination and agreed with previous speakers. Richard Harlow, 306-3rd Street, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Harlow said the proposed project would bring affordable housing to the city. He also stated that the water and sewer issues were all mitigable. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners discussed which issues could be mitigated and which could not. Commissioner Dettloff stated that although she is a proponent of affordable housing, and felt the architect was qualified the density was too high and the impacts on the community too great. Commissioner Richardson stated that the environmental impact report states major impacts that are unmitigable and are too extreme for the proposed project to be approved. There was also discussion of long term effects, the loss of valuable industrial property, time table for the project and the density being too high even for an affordable housing project. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -6- (4029d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARDSON, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1462, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DETTLOFF, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-1 BY ADOPTION PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1464, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DETTLOFF, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1: 1. The Planning Commission finds that a change in zoning from General Industrial to medium, medium high, high density residential and general commercial will prohibit future expansion of this area for industrial uses and eliminate future job opportunities which would be created as a result of industrial development. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the rezoning of the site to R2, R3, R4-MS and C4-MS will not be compatible with surrounding land uses which include single family residential to the north and across Springdale Street to the east because of an increase in traffic congestion, noise and degradation of regional air quality as stated in EIR No. 91-2. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -7- (4029d) 3. The Planning Commission finds that the rezoning of the property to residential and commercial will increase traffic to an unacceptable level of E at the intersection of Springdale Avenue and Westminster Boulevard which would adversely impact the general welfare of the surrounding community. B-3 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-4: APPLICANT: Continental Signs, Inc. LOCATION: 17251 Beach Boulevard Special Sign Permit No. 92-4 is a request to permit two (2), 69 square foot wall signs on elevations that do not front either a street or parking lot pursuant to Section 9610.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The applicant also requests to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for wall signs with a proposed total of 200 square feet for all three (3) wall signs in lieu of the code permitted 183 square feet (1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the applicants request due to the potential impacts on adjacent properties, vehicular traffic, and lack of any hardship to the applicant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Tim Chevron, representing applicant, stated that potential customers cannot see their sign, and it is creating a hardship on the business. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY NEWMAN, SECOND BY DETTLOFF, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-4 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomkaer, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-4: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -8- (4029d) 1 2. The proposed 69 square foot wall signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed wall signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs, and will be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The proposed sign at 17251 Beach Boulevard will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 92-4: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received and dated March 18, 1992 shall be the approved layout. 2. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this special sign permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings. B-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-5/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-3: APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. LOCATION: 19122 Brookhurst Street Special Sign Permit No. 92-5 is a request to permit two (2), 115 square foot, 18 foot high freestanding pylon signs, and three (3), 46 square foot, eight (8) foot high freestanding monument signs pursuant to Section 9610.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The applicant requests two (2) freestanding signs to be located within the code restricted 200 feet of another freestanding sign. The applicant further requests to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for pylon signs (115 square feet in lieu of 70 square feet) and monument signs (46 square feet in lieu of 30 square feet) and to exceed the maximum area for wall signs on Building No. 2A (Pep Boys) with a proposed 297 square feet in lieu of a maximum 200 square feet Planned Sign Program No. 92-3 is a request to approve a comprehensive sign program for all signs within the entire shopping center pursuant to Section 9610.6 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the planned sign program, however, does not support the special sign permit request. Staff feels that the applicant can provide signs that are effective and attractive, and still meet the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -9- (4029d) Commissioner Bourguignon expressed his concern to staff regarding business after business coming before the Commission with a sign variance. He suggested we take a look at our code and evaluate the reasons for this occurance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Stan Janocha, 20781 Hunter Lane, applicant, presented to the Commission his reasons for requesting the variance. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARDSON, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER THE 11:00 PM HOUR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-5 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-3 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-5: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. 2. The proposed freestanding and wall signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed freestanding and wall signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs, and will be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The proposed signs at 19122 Brookhurst Street will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision with the conditions imposed. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -10- (4029d) 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 92-3: 1. Planned Sign Program No. 92-3 will provide signs that reflect a common theme for the retail center by incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination and sign type. 2. Planned Sign Program No. 92-3 will provide for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and color of the buildings. 3. The proposed signs will be compatible with other signs in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed signs are substantially in compliance with the Huntington Beach Sign Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 92-4: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received and dated April 1, 1992 shall be the approved layout. 2. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this special sign permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-3: 1. The site plan and site elevations received and dated April 1, 1992 shall be the approved layout. B-5 REVOCATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-37/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 91-42 - CRAZY BURRO RESTAURANT: APPLICANT: Leroy Stone LOCATION: 8082 Adams Avenue (Crazy Burro Restaurant) On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission voted to schedule a revocation hearing on May 19, 1992 for the Crazy Burro's dancing and live entertainment permit due to complaints that the applicant had failed to comply with conditions of approval. Staff has made random site visits since April 7, 1992. In most instances, the Crazy Burro has complied with all conditions of approval including providing a security guard in the parking lot and keeping their doors and windows closed. There have been no land use complaints at the site and the police incidents cannot, in most instances, be positively attributed to the dancing and live entertainment. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -11- (4029d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the Crazy Burro to continue to provide dancing and live entertainment subject to three (3) new conditions: 1. A Security guard shall be stationed in the parking lot at 6:00 PM (8:00 PM on Saturdays) and shall remain on duty one (1) hour after live entertainment. 2. The applicant shall submit list of holidays and special events when valet service shall be provided. 3. A subsequent six (6) month review shall be conducted on November 3, 1992. A letter was submitted to the Commission by the applicant, Mr. Stone, requesting and extension of hours. The Public Hearings for Items B-5 and B-6 were combined for testimony purposes; however, each item will be acted upon by the Commission separately. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Judy Bortutt, 707-13th Street, is a business owner in the center. Ms. Bortutt stated that she has faced many problems with the patrons from Crazy Burro and Sakuri. She says late at night coming out of her office she has been intimidated by the patrons. Barbara Taylor, 20062 Bayfront Lane, #203, spoke in opposition to the request. She submitted a petition of opposition from the residents in the area. Bob Hilton, 20062 Bayfront Lane, #201, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Hilton says he has a video tape from the window of his home showing the complaints of the residents. Mr. Hilton says that the Security Guards are not adequate. Leroy Stone, 8082 Adams Avenue, applicant, felt that the request for a security guard at all happy hours was unreasonable. Linda Bowne, Head Bartender for Sakura, stated that she keeps the door shut every night and they have not had any police complaints since the last hearing. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the continuance of this item for 45 days with certain conditions, and hold a final revocation hearing. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -12- (4029d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO CONTINUE THE REVOCATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-37 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-42 TO THE JULY 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE NEXT HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee B-6 REVOCATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-30/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 91-44 - SAKURA JAPANESE RESTAURANT: APPLICANT: Gang Xu LOCATION: 8052 Adams Avenue (Sakura Japanese Restaurant) On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission voted to schedule a revocation hearing on May 19, 1992 for Sakura's dancing and live entertainment permit due to complaints that the applicant had failed to comply with their conditions of approval. Staff has made random site visits since April 7, 1992. In most instances, Sakura has had no dancing or live entertainment on -site. A visit on May 10, 1992 at 12:00 a.m. revealed that dancing and live entertainment were being provided; however, no security guard was on duty. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the minimal number of nights that live entertainment is provided, the lack of land use complaints and police incidents, staff is recommending that Conditional Use Permit No. 91-30 and Conditional Exception No. 91-44 not be revoked and require that the security guard remain in the parking lot one (1) hour after closing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO CONTINUE THE REVOCATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-30 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-44 TO THE JULY 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE NEXT HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -13- (4029d) B-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 92-5: APPLICANT: Richard Russell/System Autowash LOCATION: 17042 Beach Boulevard Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5 is a request for a 910 square feet addition to an existing car wash and to construct a 360 square foot car rental office building pursuant to Section 9652, 9220.1 and 9220.14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 1992. A MOTION WAS MADE BY NEWMAN, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-5 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1992, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-8: APPLICANT: C.M. Thomson, Actec Engineering Corporation LOCATION: 18622 Quarterhorse Lane Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-8 is a request for a variance from the required sideyard setback of 25 feet to 7.5 feet along the southerly property line for a 1,435 square foot room addition, pursuant to Section 930 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan). This item was requested by the applicant to be continued to June 3, 1992, due to the applicant's inability to be present on May 19, 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-8 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 1992. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -14- (4029d) 1 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY NEWMAN, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-8 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1992, DUE TO THE APPLICANTT'S INABILITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MAY 19, 1992 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 92-4 (1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach The Government Code of the State of California, Section 65401, provides that a local planning agency review a list of the proposed Public Works projects recommended for planning, initiation, or construction during the ensuing fiscal year as to conformity with the local General Plan. The City Department of Administrative Services has submitted a coordinated list of all capital projects recommended by City departments for FY 1992/93 in the form of a five (5) year Capital Improvement Program. The Department of Administrative Services requests that the Planning Commission make a finding of conformity of the projects contained in the Capital Improvement Program with the General Plan prior to submittal to the City Council. The projects listed in the Capital Improvement Program will constitute General Plan Conformance No. 92-4. Staff has attached a list of the funded and unfunded capital projects by department classification for the Planning Commission's review. Each project is summarized as to description, need, priority, funded/unfunded status, and cost. The proposed list of projects for the FY 1992/93 Capital Improvement Program represents an updated and continued implementation of the five (5) year Capital Improvements Program. A project may be carried forward due to lack of funding in 1991/92. If the project was funded in 1991/92 but not implemented, it has also been carried forward to 1992/93. It is recommended that the Commission review the project list for consideration of General Plan Conformance No. 92-4 on June 3, 1992. NO ACTION TAKEN - REVIEW ONLY PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -15- (4029d) C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1992: A MOTION WAS MADE BY DETTLOFF, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1992, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-44/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-25: APPLICANT: NESI Investment Group LOCATION: 21641 Magnolia Street (southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue) On October 27, 1991, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 91-44 and Coastal Development Permit No. 91-25 to remove liquid hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes containing free liquids from all pits and surface impoundments presently on the NESI (Ascon Landfill) site. The project was conditioned to have a six (6) month review upon commencement of operation to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and to determine if the conditions of approval are adequate to protect the surrounding properties due to permitting requirements of SCAQMD; however, the Removal Plan has been temporarily suspended and clean-up operations have not been commenced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the update of activities and schedule a six (6) month review upon the Removal Action Plan being initiated again. PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -16- (4029d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY NEWMAN, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO ACCEPT THE REMOVAL ACTION UPDATE AND SCHEDULE THE SIX (6) MONTH REVIEW ACCORDINGLY UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REMOVAL ACTION PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-9 - REVIEW OF OPERATION: APPLICANT: Rod Wilson LOCATION: 16242 Beach Boulevard (east side, approximately 135 feet south of Stark Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 91-9 is an approved request for an electronic readerboard sign at Sports Chalet at 16242 Beach Boulevard. A review of operation in February, 1992, revealed non-compliance with several conditions of approval. The applicant has since complied with all conditions of approval except obtaining a final permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the review of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-9, subject to issuance of final building permit. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARDSON, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE THE REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-9, SUBJECT TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING PERMIT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -17- (4029d) D-3 ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-64/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-44: APPLICANT: Michael D. Myers LOCATION: 4002 Morningstar Drive Upon further review, staff has learned that the applicant has recently obtained building permits for the proposed addition. A subsequent building inspection on May 15, 1992 nullifies the requirement for an extension of time to be granted. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS/INQUIRIES None F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, reiterated action taken at the May 18, 1992 City Council meeting. G . ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY INGLEE, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), ON JUNE 3, 1992 AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED BY: 1MX Ict Mike Ada s, Secr tary l2 - Plam Commissionp ing Chairerson 1 PC Minutes - 5/19/92 -18- (4029d)