Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-21L' MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2004 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Rami Talleh, Paul Da Veiga, Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ITEM 1: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 03-24 (HEROLD ADDITION — CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 14, 2004 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Jim Herold, 3271 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To construct a 535 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing single-family home. LOCATION: 3271 Gilbert Drive (north side of Gilbert Drive and east of Channel Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photograph. Staff stated that the request was continued from the January 14, 2004 meeting in order to address setback requirements and plan check concerns. Staff visited the site and confirmed the setbacks. Staff presented photographs taken of the improvements within the front yard stating that the block wall does not have permits and exceeds the height allowed by code. Staff stated that the applicant is willing to reduce the height of the block wall in order to comply with code. 0 Staff stated that research into the history of the plan check process for the garage conversion revealed that some of the original plan sheets were replaced with revised sheets, after Planning Department approval, resulting in issuance of building permits to convert the existing garage and thereby establish a nonconforming front setback. Staff advised that the garage conversion requires a setback variance, that the applicant is willing to apply for a variance and that a continuance is necessary in order to include a variance request and to re -notice the item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED OPENED. Alicia Dose, 3242 Gilbert Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project stating that the plans do not correctly reflect what the applicant has proposed. Janice Herman, 16802 Channel Lane, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Herman presented photographs stating that the converted garage does not meet the setback requirements. She stated that the proposed project does not comply with code and the homeowner's association's rules. Jim Herold, 3271 Gilbert Drive, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Mr. Herold addressed the problems concerning the plan check process and questions as related to the setbacks. He stated that he does not understand what the City's concerns are with the proposed project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, addressed the above concerns and stated that the City's concern is code compliance as well as compatibility with the neighboring area. Ms. Broeren reviewed staff's reasons for the recommendation for a continuance. She stated that she spoke with different staff members in an effort to determine how a building permit was issued with nonconforming setbacks. Ms. Broeren stated that she could not take action today on the coastal development permit due to the incompleteness of the application. Ms. Broeren confirmed with the applicant that they would submit the variance application by the end of this week. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 03-24 WAS CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 11, 2004 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AND WITH RE -NOTIFICATION. • ZA Minutes 01/21/04 2 (04zm0121 Final) 0 ITEM 2: VARIANCE NO. 03-22 (WARD ADDITION) • APPLICANT: Michael Mehalick, 525 A Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Chuck Ward, 18975 Rockinghorse Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To permit the construction of a 1,474 sq. ft. first and second story addition at a 10-ft. rear yard setback in lieu of the required 25-ft. setback required in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. LOCATION: 18975 Rockinghorse Lane (terminus of Rockinghorse Lane, south of Faircrest Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated that although the project complies with current setback requirements, the variance is being processed based on the project's non-compliance with the setback requirements in effect at the time the original tract map was approved. Staff stated that the Design Review Board recommended approval of the project. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, and staff engaged in discussions concerning compliance under the current code and the granting of past variances to neighboring properties. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Michael Mehalick, 525 A Main Street, applicant, requested approval of the subject request. Mr. Mehalick stated that staff has been provided with a letter of approval from the homeowner's association. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren asked staff to modify Finding No. 4 as follows: The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. Under the current code, the rear yard would be located alona the westerly aroaerty line and no variance would be reauired. The variance was arocessed based on the oriainal tract mao anoroval. which considered the rear yard as located along the southerly property line. The reduced rear yard setback will not impact the surrounding properties or circulation of adjacent streets. The property will continue to provide the adequate number of parking spaces on the driveway and the proposed 10-foot rear yard setback is consistent with the property located directly across from the subject property. ZA Minutes 01/21/04 3 (04zm0121 Final) VARIANCE NO. 03-22 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of an addition to an existing structure, and involves negligible or no expansion of the existing use. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO. 03-22: The granting of Variance No. 03-22 to permit the construction of a 1,474 sq. ft. first and second story addition at a 10-ft. rear yard setback in lieu of the required 25-ft. setback required in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The surrounding neighborhood contains other properties which were granted exceptions for reduced front yard setbacks due to unusual lot depths, lot configurations, and to allow variations in the street scene. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location and surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject site is located at the terminus of a cul de sac street therefore the shape of the lot is irregular and the rear yard is actually used as the exterior side yard based on the placement of the home on the lot. The home is currently setback approximately 30 feet from the westerly property line. This setback area is currently used as the rear yard. The shape and width of the subject lot, and the location of the existing home with respect to surrounding homes in the neighborhood, result in the consideration of the southerly property line as being the exterior side yard and westerly property line as the rear yard. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject residence is currently setback approximately 30 feet from the westerly property line. The addition will allow development of an underutilized portion of the subject lot based on its location with respect to the footprint of the home. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. Under the current code, the rear yard would be located along the westerly property line and no variance would be required. The variance was processed based on the original tract map approval, which considered the rear yard as located along the southerly property line. The reduced rear yard setback will not impact the surrounding properties or circulation of adjacent streets. The property will continue to provide the adequate number of parking spaces on the driveway and the proposed 10-foot rear yard setback is consistent with the property located directly across from the subject property. • ZA Minutes 01/21/04 4 (04zm0121 Final) 0 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property by allowing for estate residential development while maintaining adequate open space based on the existing 30-foot setback to the westerly property line. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — VARIANCE NO. 03-22: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 18, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A letter from the Property Owners Association shall be submitted indicating that the proposed project has been approved, denied, or that the CC&R's do not require Association or Committee review. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 3. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ZA Minutes 01/21/04 5 (04=0121_Final) ITEM 3• ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO 03-09 (WARNER/MANNING HOMES — • AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 03-01 AND VARIANCE NO. 03-01) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph Santiago, 403 Tenth Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To amend Conditional Use Permit No. 03-01 and Variance No. 03-01 by deleting the following conditions from the conditions of approval: a) Condition No. 1-a — requiring the removal of staircase along interior side property line; b) Condition No. 4 — requiring an application for a lot line adjustment; c) Condition No. 3-a — requiring an irrevocable offer to dedicate for alley purposes; d) Condition No. 5-d-e — requiring a new water meter and box; e) Condition No. 1-d — requiring the undergrounding of utility lines. LOCATION: 403 Tenth Street (northeast corner of Tenth Street and Orange Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-01 and Variance No. 03-01, which were approved at the March 26, 2003, Zoning Administrator (ZA) meeting. Staff stated that during the March 26, 2003, ZA meeting, the applicant agreed to the condition requiring the removal of the staircase. Staff stated that following the March 26, 2003, ZA meeting, the applicant requested deletion of the conditions as reflected in the subject request. Staff presented a detailed review of the previous communications between staff and the applicant. Staff stated that the applicant cited provisions from the California State Historic Building Code, and that the applicant filed an appeal to the California State Historic Building and Safety Board, which was subsequently denied. Staff presented a review of the suggested findings for denial of the subject entitlement plan amendment. Staff recommended denial of the request based upon the suggested findings as outlined in the executive summary. One letter was received from the applicant. One letter was received from the neighbors in opposition to the proposed project. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Joseph Santiago, 403 Tenth Street, applicant, spoke in opposition to staff's suggested findings for denial as outlined in the executive summary. Mr. Santiago also questioned the necessity for those conditions previously approved at the March 26, 2003 Zoning Administrator hearing as detailed in the subject request. Mr. Santiago stated that he had documented his reasons in support of his opposition to staff's recommendation, which addressed the following: • Setback Requirements • Staircase • Utility Lines . ZA Minutes 01/21/04 6 (04zm0121 Final) • Code Requirements • California State Historic Building Code • General Plan Lot Line Adjustment: Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, advised the applicant that she has read the letters and other documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request. Don Krotee, 515 N. Main Street, architect, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Krotee in reference to previously approved Condition No. 1.a, stated that the proposed staircase should be allowed in order to provide a secondary exit. He stated that the California Building Code and City provide for a waiver thereby allowing the proposed staircase. Mr. Krotee urged the Zoning Administrator's approval of the request. John Koch, 417 101h Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project based on the following: • Safety issues related to the use of the alleyway for pedestrian access to and from the dwelling. • Safety concerns related to the existing garage. • Setback of the new garage and adding the Manning House on the top. • Concern that the historic home will be used as a future bed and breakfast business enterprise. • On -street parking problems. John Janis, 405 10`h Street, neighboring property owner, was concerned that he had been notified by the applicant that the common fence between his property and the subject site is located on the applicant's property. Even if that were the case, he thought he would be entitled to a prescriptive easement to use the property. Mr. Janis inquired into the nature of a variance stating that he is considering a similar project on his property at some time in the future. He also expressed concerns regarding impacts to on -street parking. Natalie Katsch, a realtor located in downtown Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the proposed project. She spoke on the difficulties involved in restoring historic properties and expressed gratefulness for the applicant's efforts. Mike Hoskinson, 402 11'h Street, spoke in support of the proposed project, stating that he is satisfied with what the applicant is attempting to accomplish. Mr. Hoskinson supported the applicant's request to retain the ingress and egress provided by the stairwell. A neighboring property owner located at 328 11'h St #E, spoke in support of the proposed project stating that parking is not a problem in the neighborhood. Mitchell Wade, 6171 Priscilla Drive, contractor, spoke on behalf of the applicant and the proposed project. Mr. Wade questioned why the executive summary did not reference the City's General Plan Policy LU 4.2.2. • Mr. Santiago responded to the setback and garage concerns that were raised by the members in the audience. ZA Minutes 01/21/04 7 (04=0121_Final) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren engaged in discussions with Eric Haghani, Department of Building and Safety. Mr. Haghani advised that a second stairway is not required by the building code. Consequently, the condition to remove the stairway does not conflict with building code requirements. Further discussion ensued concerning the following as related to the building code: • Requirements and procedure in making application for a waiver of a building code requirement. • Building code requirements for a stairway. • Enclosure of the stairway. • Requirement for a three-foot clearance on one side of the property line for access. • Requirement that the garage existing below the proposed addition meet current code requirements for structural support. Ms. Broeren addressed questions raised by Mr. Janis stating that issues concerning property lines are a civil matter and that he may wish to hire a surveyor to determine the precise location of the property line. She stated that staff evaluates variances on a case -by -case basis. Ms. Broeren explained that the granting of variances for a particular project on a particular site does not necessarily mean that a neighboring property would be granted those same variances. Ms. Broeren engaged in discussions with staff concerning: • The applicability of a lot line adjustment versus a lot merger. • A covenant to hold the parcels as one, in lieu of a lot line adjustment. Ms. Broeren engaged in discussions with the applicant and confirmed the following: • The applicant wishes to keep the existing water meter and box for historical purposes. • The applicant objects to the condition requiring an irrevocable offer to dedicate for alley purposes. Ms. Broeren stated that she has visited the subject site and is familiar with the City's attempts to accommodate the applicant's previous requests. Ms. Broeren stated that the historical significance of the Manning Home is not based on the structure itself, but on the fact that a former mayor lived in the home. Ms. Broeren stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation for denial and addressed each of the items in the subject request and stated as follows: • Keeping the second stairway is not necessary for the structural integrity of the building and is not warranted or required by the building code. • The condition requiring the undergrounding of utility lines is a code requirement that can not be waived by the Zoning Administrator. The request should be directed to the City engineer during the plan check process. 0 ZA Minutes 01/21/04 8 (04=0121_Final) • The requirement to record an irrevocable offer to dedicate for alley widening is a 4 standard requirement and is necessary in order to upgrade the alley. • The requirement for a lot line adjustment will remain since, as stated by the Building Department, a covenant to hold parcels as one is not an acceptable alternative. • Since the Department of Public Works declined the applicant's request to keep the existing water meter, the condition will remain. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to deny the request. She stated that, as discussed with the applicant when the subject project was initiated, the City supports preservation of historic structures. Ms. Broeren also noted that the applicant's approach is unique. She stated that the applicant has enjoyed a number of benefits that other properties would not have, including the fact that the applicant has been granted four variances with respect to parking, garage dimensions, and rear yard setbacks. Ms. Broeren stated that staff has made every effort to streamline the environmental review process. She stated that staff has worked with the applicant to accomplish a viable project. Mr. Santiago stated that the variances granted are minor and that nothing had been streamlined in the process. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-09 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-09: Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 03-09 to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 03-01 and Variance No. 03-01 by deleting the following conditions from the conditions of approval: a) Condition No. 1-a — requiring the removal of staircase along interior side property line; b) Condition No. 4 — requiring an application for a lot line adjustment; c) Condition No. 3-a — requiring an irrevocable offer to dedicate for alley purposes; d) Condition No. 5-d-e — requiring a new water meter and box; e) Condition No. 1-d — requiring the under grounding of utility lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed exterior staircase located along the side property does not comply with the 2001 California Building Code in that it is located in areas where building openings are prohibited and does not comply with the minimum required width for a staircase. Condition Nos. 4, 3-a, 5-d-e, and 1-d are code requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The principal method for ensuring that developments are not detrimental to the neighborhood is the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and 2001 California Building Code, and the design and development standards contained therein. 2. The proposed Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 03-09 will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The request to delete Condition Nos. 4, 3-a, 5-d-e, and ZA Minutes 01/21/04 9 (04zm0121_Final) 1-d does not comply with the minimum code requirements for development within the City • of Huntington Beach. The aforementioned conditions are code requirements outlined in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed exterior staircase located along the side property does not comply with the 2001 California Building Code. 3. The granting of the entitlement plan amendment will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Medium High Density: LU 4.2.1 Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations. LU 9.2 Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods The principal method for implementation of the General Plan is the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance, the 2001 California Building Code, and the design and development standards contained therein. Accordingly, projects, which do not comply with the 2001 California Building Code and HBZSO standards, are inconsistent with the General Plan. ITEM 4• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 03-54 (LI'S LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) APPLICANT: Mike Adams, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . PROPERTY OWNER: Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, c/o Snyder Properties, Jodyne Roseman, 1741 Grand Ave., Del Mar, CA 92014 REQUEST: To establish a live entertainment use in conjunction with an existing restaurant LOCATION: 8961 Adams Avenue (northwest corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary. No written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Adams, P.O. Box 382, applicant, questioned suggested Condition of Approval No. 2.a. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • ZA Minutes 01/21/04 10 (04zm0121_Final) Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, asked staff to modify suggested Condition of Approval No. 2.a as follows: the sale of aiGGhol4G beverages commencement of live entertainment activities, a. Prior to n,�. beverages, a copy of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) license, along with any special conditions imposed by the ABC, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for the file. Any conditions that are more restrictive than those set forth in this approval shall be adhered to. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-54 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that operation and minor alteration to existing structures involving negligible or no expansion are exempt from further environmental review. • FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-54: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-54 for the establishment of a live entertainment use in conjunction with an existing restaurant will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed live entertainment will occur within a lounge area at the center of the building with no direct access to the outside. The entertainment would be limited to primarily a piano with an occasional small jazz group (typically three pieces or less). Based upon the conditions imposed, the proposed restaurant use will not create adverse noise or parking impacts to the surrounding businesses and residents 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the restaurant with live entertainment is consistent with the character of the existing commercial shopping center. The restaurant with live entertainment will comply with the conditions of approval imposed and monitored by the Planning Department, Alcoholic Beverage control (ABC), the Huntington Beach Police Department to assure impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. Furthermore the live entertainment use will occur within the restaurant, surrounded by other commercial building, and approximately 100 feet away from the nearest residence. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-54 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. ZA Minutes 01/21/04 11 (04zm0121_Final) 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Commercial General on the subject is property. In addition it complies with the following objectives and goals of the General Plan: Obiective LU 1.1 Provide for the timing of residential, commercial, and industrial development coincident with the availability of adequate market demand to ensure economic vitality. Goal LU 10 Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses. Obiective LU 10.1 Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, serve visitors to the City, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. The proposed live entertainment will allow Li's Restaurant to compete with other restaurants and bars that offer music and related activities. Approval of the request will add to the range and diversity of uses and services offered to Huntington Beach citizens and will also serve to draw visitors to the establishment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-54: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 17, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 0 2. The use shall comply with the following: a. Prior to commencement of live entertainment activities, a copy of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) license, along with any special conditions imposed by the ABC, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for the file. Any conditions that are more restrictive than those set forth in this approval shall be adhered to. b. Prior to commencement of live entertainment activities, a copy of an approved Entertainment Permit, as issued by the Business License Department, shall be submitted to the Planning Department. c. All conditions of the Entertainment Permit as approved by the Police Department. d. Only the uses described in the narrative received and dated October 17, 2003, shall be permitted. e. The live entertainment use shall not occur between the hours of 2 am and 7 am. ZA Minutes 01/21/04 12 (04zm0121_Final) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: 0 The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:15 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004 AT 1:30 PM. Ma Beth Broeren Zoning Administrator rmk . • ZA Minutes 01/21/04 13 (04zm0121 Final)