The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAWCETT, SCOTT - Sign Permit 93-11 17422 - 17438 Beach Bl T Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Qgnature Council Meeting Date: March 18, 1996 Department ID Number: CD 96-14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City AdministratorAV PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Director of Community Development Z SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (MAX MARKET) Statement ofissue,Funding'Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environ Val Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a letter from the applicant, Mr. J. Scott Fawcett, requesting to withdraw Special Sign Permit No. 93-11. Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 represents a request to retain two non-conforming freestanding signs identifying Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet at the Sterling Center located at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard. The applicant indicates that a revised sign proposal will be submitted to the City in the near future. Recommended Action: Motion-ta. "Accept applicant's request to withdraw Special Sign Permit No. 93-11." —� Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page ................... ................ ........... .................... ............ . .......... ................... ......................... ................... .... .................. . ..... ... .................... ................ .......... ..................... .................. ........ ..................... ................ ......... 1. Letter from applicant dated February 29, 1996 requesting withdrawal 2. City Council RCA dated September 18, 1995 CT ..........-............-.............. ..-.............-.............-...............-................ ................................................................................................. ATTACHMENT 1............. Feb-29-96 11 : 34A Marinita Dev Company 714 756-8436 P . O2 STERLING CENTER 3835 BIRCH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 February 29, 1996 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Application for Special Sign Permit #93-11 Sterling Center (Max Market) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I respectfully request withdrawal of subject application based upon a new sign proposal to be submitted to the City in the near future. The non-conforming sign will be removed within 90 days. Sincerely yours, J. Scott Fawcett General Partner, sterling Center JSF/lc ......... � T TA - m ' EN S' 2..... .... ......... Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: September 18, 1995 Department ID Number: CD 95-42 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director� � SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the March 6, 1995 City Council Meeting) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Statusi Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Jim Silva of Special Sign Permit No.. 93-11. The request was denied-by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993. The public hearing was originally continued open from the March 7, 1994 City Council meeting, to the March 6, 1995 City Council meeting. The continuance was to allow the Sign Code Committee to conclude._ their review of the existing sign ordinance. At the March 6, 1995 meeting., the City Council granted another six month continuance to allow finalization of the Sign Code revisions. The Sign Code Committee has completed their review, however, the proposed revisions have not been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Sign Code revisions are expected to be presented to the Planning Commission in October. Staff anticipates the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process to be completed by the beginning of next year. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open on Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 to the City Council meeting of March 18, 1996." IAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIG MEETING DATE: September 18, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-42 Alternative Action(s): The Council may take one of the following alternative actions: 1. Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2; or 2. Approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 by approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of aouLoval as..qutlined in Attachment No 3 _... Analysis: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would- permit one seven feet high multi- tenant monument sign. The City Council has continued the request for one and one-half years to allow the Sign Code Committee to review and make recommendations on the existing sign ordinance. As noted, the Sign Code revisions are pending public hearing review. A complete analysis of the request is included in the attached March 6, 1995, staff report. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. MTU:MSF:HZ:hf�. Attachment(s): City Clerk's- • Number 1. Request for Council Action dated March 6, 1995 2. Findings for Denial - SSP No. 93-11 3. Alternative Findings for Approval - SSP No. 93-11 CD95-42.DOC -2- 08/30/95 8:03 AM u p SOLSA &cr� 5APCOSY NCB — ID:vG7L IML WAX`tfli �� Y � i t 1 • TAU LR2 i • 3 LLL•S= Y. s s f.A3LrXLd7 YOR)M"SITE S , ADAM5 1 VDLti\A?OL.LS -� 11,IA,10 4 I �� ` MO.T V HAHII.T9?t c ati��rc x � � J 1 � ) SSP 93 - 11 HUNTNGTON REACH Pt.AN%%I'%C: nrVIVON. All f s I 1 I , I • I I , I • I _ uAx uAxx S i FAMRY SEER It o ISO) I y LA M-P OUT1,91 1MNE 1 8 S. I LARGE SHADE DEPT. MARKET STUIUNC CCNUR �CASC►ICNT �' artat rv1A �' mu I`tllL .. Y 'i1.�4p�%ivyv —•-�� n _ t/7.tZ fit• 1G �rK ._ _ ` IW T 1. 3/} � 7 NCSTAUnAHT • ' , 1� Ir STLLI,ro111 Air STLEL rou b I "I.WPS POLO SIGN I- NOT A PAR '14AIC PULL SIGN , I POLE SIGN ( , J � ; AarluL► Aallur f ITl/T//77/-/r Tl7ll7 iiTTT'7 � �T/TiiTTll7% ' --- - !' UCACII DLYO --_-- N.'C.S. N.T.S. 1 '�- CxISTINC 911:1,15 ANU 1'ULCS STCiIUNr. CL•NTCIt DRAWN MR: %ALE; I' ' 20' STCIIUNC CENTCII 1II11C11 srncrr �`l'1'►�ZLING CE NOT IZ NCxI'011T IICACII• CA. U2660 1 scow rorri-r• 17•I'1,2- :111 111:�t It Itnll Aittl r•'qI"�'• !e AlIT111'U . RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable ..EXPLANATION FOR:MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVfEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk ... EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use 3 -ids- Q�o Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to:.UM ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: September 18, 1995 Department ID Number: CD 95-43 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator 04y 4.3&,s le i t- .14 4-h; K k ? PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Di ector4.Aw; r Sal ✓� SUBJECT: APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-13 (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 3, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Stat s,Attachment( Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Earle Robitaille of Special Sign Permit No. 93-13 which was denied by the Planning Commission on February 1, 1994. The public hearing was originally continued open from the April 4, 1994 City Council meeting, to the April 3, 1995 City Council meeting. The continuance was to allow the Sign Code Committee to conclude their review of the existing sign ordinance. At the April 3, 1995 meeting, the City Council granted another six (6) month continuance to allow finalization of the Sign Code revisions. The Sign Code Committee has completed their review, however, the proposed revisions have not been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Sign Code revisions are expected to be presented to the Planning Commission in October. Staff anticipates the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process to be completed by the beginning of next year. Due to the length of time between public hearings, staff will re- advertise the request for the public hearing in March, 1996. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open and re-advertise the public hearing on Special Sign Permit No. 93-13 to the City Council meeting of March 18, 1996." 'from-the desk of. • Deputy EVELYN SCHMERT City Cl �) City of Huntin Clerk P.O.Huntington Beach 190 Huntington Be Beach, C ( 14)536e..S40S 92648 / CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNTINGTON OWN -I TO. Scott Hess, Senior Planner FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk - SUBJECT: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Appeal DATE: March 8, 1994 ' Art DeLaLoza discovered the fact that on 3/7/94 Council's motion-to approve the appeal failed and the failure resulted in the Planning Commission's denial being sustained. Council subsequently approved a motion-which continued the hearing to March 7, 1995. Please ask Art DeLaLoza to write the City Clerk a memo stating there is no problem with this hearing being held September 18, 1995 as a continued open public hearing even though on March 7, 1994 Council accidentally sustained the Planning Commission and denied Special Sign Permit No. 93-11. Art DeLaLoza said he was going to work out a solution to this problem, which he had brought to the attention of the City Clerk. ro S Got+ �a w cCsCl" cc: Art DeLaLoza, Deputy City Attorney `i + 1 S 1 U'� (4-p,�e- Gtutl� ! , ' gacc\escmite\hess i i. CHANGE A LABEL CHANGE LABEL M: rl Cowes c;I M c.� (xv lee, CHANGE LABEL TO: (35 characters grid) 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z 11 2Z — 9 VA _ jgWr-'- _i59V_fr_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AFTER LABEL CHANGE IS COMPLETED, CHECK HERE: & RETURN THIS FORM TO EVELYN! 0894I 9 : .... w.S ace For Cif Clerks:Use.. Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3/0a: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Department ID Number: CD 95-009 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator40 PREPARED BY: Melanie S. Fallon, Community. Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the Marc , 1994 City Council meeting) Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action, Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Jim Silva of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993 (see Attachment No. 1). The public hearing was continued open from the March 7, 1994, City Council meeting in order to allow the Sign Code Committee to conclude their review of the existing sign ordinance. The Sign Code Committee has not completed their review nor has a recommendation on the revisions been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The committee is expected to conclude the review of the ordinance in.approximately six (6) months. Fundinq Source: Not Applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open on Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 to the City Council meeting of September 18, 1995." Analysis: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding- pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu . of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would permit one seven feet high multi-tenant monument sign. The City Council continued the request for one year to allow the Sign Code Committee to review and make recommendations on the existing sign ordinance. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the March 7, 1994 City Council meeting) CD 95-009 Alternative Action(s): The Council may take one of the following alternative actions: 1. Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). 2. Approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 by approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No. 4 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). Attachment(s): Page Number 1. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 CD95-009.DOC -2- 02/07/95 8:36 AM I Council/Agency Meeting Hgld: ,00r,t% Deferred/Continued to: 3-18.9,g ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: September 18, 1995 Department ID Number: CD 95-42 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator OWf PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the March 6, 1995 City Council Meeting) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Statu A chment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Jim Silva of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11. The request was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993. The public hearing was originally continued open from the March 7, 1994 City Council meeting, to the March 6, 1995 City Council meeting. The continuance was to allow the Sign Code Committee to conclude their review of the existing sign ordinance. At the March 6, 1995 meeting, the City Council granted another six month continuance to allow finalization of the Sign Code revisions. The Sign Code Committee has completed their review, however, the proposed revisions have not been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Sign Code revisions are expected to be presented to the Planning Commission in October. Staff anticipates the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process to be completed by the beginning of next year. Due to the length of time between public hearings, staff will re- advertise the request for the public hearing in March, 1996. Fundinq Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open and re-advertise the public hearing on Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 to the City Council meeting of March 18, 1996." • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIA MEETING DATE: September 18, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-42 Alternative Action(s): The Council may take the following alternative action: 1. "Continue and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would permit one seven feet high multi- tenant monument sign. The City Council has continued the request for one and one-half years to allow the Sign Code Committee to review and make recommendations on the existing sign ordinance. As noted, the Sign Code revisions are pending public hearing review. A complete analysis of the request is included in the attached March 6, 1995, staff report. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. MTU:MSF:HZ:hf Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page ....... 1. Request for Council Action dated March 6, 1995 CD95-42.DOC -2- 09/11/95 2:50 PM ATTACHMENT 1 ow S ace For Cat :Clerk's Use t . Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved. ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Department ID Number: CD 95-009 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administratoro2v.J PREPARED BY: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the Marc 7, 1994 City Council meeting) Statement of issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action, Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) 4-r Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Jim Silva of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993 (see Attachment No. 1). The public hearing was continued open from the March 7, 1994, City Council meeting -in order to allow the Sign-Code -Committee to conclude their-review--of-the-existing-sign ordinance. The Sign Code Committee has not completed their review nor has a recommendation on the revisions been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The committee is expected to conclude the review of the ordinance in approximately six (6) months. Funding Source: Not Applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open on Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 to the City Council meeting of September 18, 1995." Analysis: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would permit one seven feet high multi-tenant monument sign. The City Council continued the request for one year to allow the Sign Code Committee to review and make recommendations on the existing sign ordinance. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the March 7, 1994 City Council meeting) CD 95-009 Alternative Action(s): The Council may take one of the following alternative actions: 1. Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No.'2 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). 2. Approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 by approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No. 4 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). Attachment(s)• Page Number 1. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 V CD95-009.DOC -2- 02/07/95 8:36 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 7, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator� LJ� Prepared by: Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development`�91�_' Subject: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Fundin Source_Alfifnafive Actions AttaclimFi_ STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for City Council consideration is an appeal by Council Member Jim Silva (See Attachment No. 1) of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993. Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal ,of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would allow one seven feet high multi- tenant monument sign. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2." PLANNNG COMMISSION ACTION ON D C MBER 7 199 THE MOTION MADE BY COOK, SECOND BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 WITH FINDINGS, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE: AYES: COOK, GORMAN, BIDDLE, RICHARDSON, DETTLOFF,NEWMAN, INGLEE NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION PASSED ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also, included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center located at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (Sterling Center). The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit and approved the planned sign program. The planned sign program stipulated that the two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs that identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two years through Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired on September 17, 1993, and requires the removal of the two pole signs. The two signs are to be replaced by one code conforming seven feet high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. The monument sign will include the name of the center, provide signage for the two businesses, and provide identification for two additional tenants. Special Sign Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft. of sign area) and Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft. of sign area). Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building. Lamp's Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard -- ` -"but is also partially screened by the existing building.--On the basis of the lot configuration,-location _ of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building , the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. Staff believes that two freestanding* signs along the 80 feet of street frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot that adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent lot is the location of the building (Rodeo Mexican Restaurant) that obstructs the retail center requesting retention of their signs. Therefore, there are three freestanding signs pole signs along a 160 foot frontage of Beach Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is excessive and cluttered and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an improvement of signage. The new monument sign will continue to provide the two tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. RCA-3/7/94 2 0-01 In addition, the existing two freestanding signs are incompatible with the center to the north along Beach Boulevard (Holland Center). This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 would be inconsistent with the Holland Center sign. Staff believes that the monument sign permitted by code for Sterling Center will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request based upon the two pole signs being incompatible with approved signs in the area. Analysis of the Anneal The appeal filed by Council Member Jim Silva is based upon; 1) the city's current economic climate, 2) the fact that the city is currently reviewing the zoning regulations for signs in the city and, 3) the retention of non-conforming signs not the establishment of new non-conforming signs. Staffs analysis of the appeal will focus on the review of the zoning regulations by the Sign Code - ---_--,---Committee and the retention of the non-conforming signs, not the economic climate of the city.... ... The Sign Code Committee is composed of City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City staff. The Subcommittee's recommendations for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard is to allow lots with 200-400 feet of frontage to have max. 10 feet high freestanding signs in lieu of 7 feet high signs. No code changes are proposed that would affect the applicant's property. The Planning Commission approved these changes to the sign code in October 1993, and are pending before the City Council. The retention of the two non-conforming signs, not the establishment of non-conforming signs is the next point of the appeal. Through the limited sign permit process, staff believes that the applicant has already enjoyed the privilege of retaining the taro non-conforming signs for a maximum period of two years. The premise of this process is to allow non-conforming signs to re- faced and remain during the establishment period of a new business. Therefore, the applicant has been given the opportunity to open for business and not be burdened with the additional economic hardship of an entirely new sign. Staff does not support the appellants point. ,Staff believes that the center and the businesses have been granted this period and more, and therefore, the signs are no longer necessary to identify a new business or site. In addition, other signs in the area have been brought into conformance with the code and the retention of these signs will be detrimental to newly established code conforming signs in the area. Staff believes that the signs should now be removed as required by the implementation of the planned sign program. ,� RCA-3/7/94 3 conclusion In reviewing the appeal and the applicant's request, staff believes that the request should be denied based upon the analysis and the findings that; 1) that the strict compliance with the Sign Ordinance will not be an economic hardship, 2) the retention of two non-conforming signs on 80 feet of frontage will adversely affect other signs in the area and, 3) the retention of two non-conforming signs will be detrimental to property in the vicinity. FUNDr NG SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may approve the appeal and approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No.4. ATTACHMENTS: . 1. Appeal letter dated 12/17/93 from Council Member Jim Silva 2. Findings for Denial dated 12/7/93 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12/7/93 4. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Applicant's Request) l RCA - 3/7/94 4 .� J. ;N14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTIKTON(EACH O = rn c� x rn :,. - a 'v TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Jim Silva, City Council Member w DATE: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Appeal to the Planning Commission Denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11 _._Please note that_I would like to appeal-the Planning_Commission's.denial of..Special Permit 93-11. The request is to retain two existing pole signs located in the Sterling Center at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). The reason for this appeal is as follows: The city is currently reviewing the requirements of zoning regulations for signs in light of the city's current economic climate. Therefore any approval for a modified sign would be based on speculation of the regulations for the new sign code. The request is for the retention of two non conforming signs not the establishment of new non conforming; therefore, this request would not add to the number of non conforming signs. In addition to the above stated reasons, I feel that the City Council should have the desire and responsibility to retain business in Huntington Beach. I further believe that the Council should make the final decision on matters which directly effect the economic conditions of the community. xc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator �tuT' QD . •f Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 I December 10 , 1993 J. Scott Fawcett 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach , CA 92660 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs . LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: December 7, 1993 FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1, Strict compliance with Article-961-will---not__r_es 1t. in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because "adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years. 2. The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area . The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on - only 80 feet of frontage and because the s.igns are not compatible with -proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to. property' located in• th vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of. farontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the arez I Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 Page Two I hereby certify that Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 was denled . by the Planning Commission of. the City of Huntington Beach on December 7, 1993 , upon the foregoing findings . Sincerely, Mike Adams , Secretary Planning Commission by: Scott Hess Senior Planner \v huntington beach department of community development STAff REpOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 7 , 1993 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (17422-17438 Beach Boulevard) I Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No . 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, . 1993 . On September 17, 1991, .the Planning Commission denied Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 which was a request to reface one (1) of the. two (2) non-conforming pole signs on-site, but approved Planned Sign Program No . 91-7. The approval of the planned sign program allowed the retention of the two (2) pole signs for a maximum period of two (2) years (Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9) with the stipulation that the signs be removed and replaced with a 'seven (7) foot high monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . Staff does not support the applicant ' s request because the applicant has already enjoyed the privilage of the use of the two (2) pole signs for a period of two (2) years, the signs are excessive in height, and the 'retention of two (2) poles signs on 80 feet of frontage is in violation of the sign code and is not in keeping with the policy of signs along Beach Boulevard. Staff recommends denial of Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 which would allow the two (2) non-conforming signs to be retained with findings for denial . A•Pl•FM•230 1 _ B BOLSA I St 1 Q 8 MC1 LTf _ { Z { CENTER MTHOML \ "C'L SLATER 1 WAX-ER C,. • • TAursT ` ♦ so i 8 � s GARYIE D YORXTovem SITE S •�� 1� ADAMS ,M ANAPOL15 wnuro � S ! CsC ATLATTA CIL U � ! m SSP 93- 11 HUNTUNGTON BEACH PLANN1tiG DWIS10N TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December .7, 1993 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 APPLICANT/ J. Scott Fawcett PROPERTY 3835 Birch Street OWNER: Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs . LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE ACCEPTED: November 23, 1993 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial EXISTING USE: Shopping Center ACREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 square feet) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to : "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings . " 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special' Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high. non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the 'removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subi ect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Medical Building/Service Station - '� `�`"W�st—o-f-Subject Propertv. (A�ross�Beach Boulevaid) : �^ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 5 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not- applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 4 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Backoround On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The proposal also included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail. center. The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit but approved the planned sign program with the stipulation that the two (2) 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs which identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two (2) years through Limited Sign Permit No . 91-9 . Limited Sign Permit No . 91-9 expired Staff Report - 12/7/93 -2- (7458d) .. on September 17 , 1993 and requires the removal of the two (2) pole signs . The signs are to be replaced by a single seven (7) foot high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center . Planned Sign Program The Master Sign Program for Sterling Center includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No . 3) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Special Sian Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two (2) pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft . of sign area) and for Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft . of sign area) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building . Lamps Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is partially screened by the existing building. Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit . Staff believes that two (2) freestanding signs along the 80 feet of frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on - - -an- adjacent lot which -adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent--lot--------..-.--- is the location of the building which obstructs the retail center requesting the retention of their signs . Therefore, there are three (3) freestanding pole signs along a 160 foot frontage along Beach Boulevard . The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is cluttered and excessive and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an. improvement of signage and also will continue to provide the two (2) tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard . An example of improved signage along Beach Boulevard is the Holland Center (Centerfield Sports Bar) . This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process , the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Staff believes that the monument sign will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as the small shopping center . Design Review Board On October 21, 1993 , the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed sign for colors, materials and design only. The Board did not comment or make any recommendations regarding the special sign permit request . The Board did recommend the colors , materials and f Staff Report - 12/7/93 -3- (7458d) design of the signs for the retail center as required and depicted in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 . The recommendation was by unanimous vote. Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of the suites being blocked from view by another building . However, staff does not believe the retention of the non-conforming freestanding pole signs and maintaining the life of the signs is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard . Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit . 10 . 0 RECOKMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No.' 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years . 2 . The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area . The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible .with proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 with findings and suggested conditions bf approval . ATTACHMENTS • 1. Applicant 's Narrative 2 . Site plan and sign elevation dated August 19 , 1993 3 . Monument sign, Planned sign Program No . 91-7 4 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 17, 1991 5 . Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval SH: F• ss Staff Report - 12/7/93 -4- (7458d) STERLING CENTER 3835 Birch Street l,.. Newport Beach., CA 92660 (714) 756-8677 August 19,. 1993 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Sterling Center 17422-38 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Dear Commissioners: We are requesting a special sign permit for the purpose of maintaining the existing sign program at the subject shopping center. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 allows the two existing pole signs identifying a lamp store and market to remain until September 17, 1993. If we are required to remove the pole signs,. these two businesses will suffer a further loss of sales. This is because an existing Mexican Restaurant, not a part of Sterling Center, blocks the visability of these businesses. Due to the declining economy_~ . -'- -""�"-and ' resultant-`reduction of income, we do not have the money to replace these signs. Banks have refused our request to borrow money to build a new monument sign structure along with new signs. The shopping center is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site. We are hopeful that the Commission will understand the hardship we are faced with and act favorably upon our request. Sincerely yours, STERLING CENTER J. Scott Fawcett General Partner JSF/ke Enclosures i 1 i 1 ff� i i 1 ,P I 1 11• 1 �• MAX MURK I 13 0 I i II'ACTORY BEER 8, 1 LAMPSOUTLET '� ' 8 s, LARGE SHADE DEPT. MARKET .ice ___ S UIUNG CENTER ' EASEMENTI G' JT1 AL POLL �' ma rvls _ 1 IW 1 • \ � RESTAURANT - 5 . � h' i orS=4 POIK Ir SUM J`M "Vo f I I i o � -LAMPS' POLE SIGH I^ NOT A PART 1 MAX' PULE SIGN , POLE SIGN 1 AJPITALT; A911ALT --�� ---- UEACfI DLYD -^---�--�^ j N.T.S. N.T.S. FX1571NC 91i:NS AND POLES STERUNG CENTER A.11./ 107-012-03 f DRAWN FOR: 1 SCALE; 1' 10' STERUNG CENTER •3ODG BIRCH TrREtT STERLING C Li N`!,.L I� NEWPORT IIrACII, CA. U2660 J SC01T FATE rr, } !IC11 Hnl I n Itl) L b ..o .e..��OI.JQ�• ll:�l:.l!Il�lC y j I L STERLING CENTERLAMPS ? �; M A 1'l�ii��l1'��1��r � ()YT7'Ii�S�I' S�! � '� • PRE( Q BEER &; WINE 5t' 1 ; � 17422-17438! r-%.s-T-u1ToJ-r 4 I -.� ( r•.� -t`!l�lta �wGCCu ..� (emu Aco�'�....w.Jioo� ! !� f •'!1^Rf• (O LKTFu4DCD P+.uHlNUl1 L.■BInIETs F►Nc CD pFr- r NnTC-. • potCTCD•0V.CT ^(.u(-1(NUrl rj^.e y boZ 6P-(Ar vji'nA PCx-ILAc fi/'r,-s . W fG a� • : • W`�T� P�•[sP+r-ATCD �*u�HINUN PEpE�i7At.,�TEMIIRE GCY�.T�v. _ +� j INTtR�GA(t.utrtthlo.Tla.1 `pD CG eco r---N46H OUT,1.R-mOW9-wpST-vt(�}, NI W a 1 � i huntington beach department of community developmen STAFF SPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September 17, 1991 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-9/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 91-7 i APPLICANT: Ahmad Mozaffari/Max Market DATE ACCEPTED: 17438 Beach Boulevard September 6, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Sterling Center November 5, 1991. OWNER: 217 S. Violet Lane Orange, CA 92669 ZONE: C4 (Highway _-----—___- Comlr►ercial) REOUESST: To. permit the face change of a non-conforming 15 foot GENERAL PLAN: General freestanding pole sign (Max Commercial Market) and the establish- ment of a sign program for EXISTING USE: Shopping the shopping center. Center LCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard AQREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 sf) (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north Slater Avenue) 1 . 0 SUGGE5TEn ACTION: Motion to : A. "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings; and" B. "Approve Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 with findings and suggested- conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign fo r a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. " 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 in conjunction with Planned .Sign Program No . 91-7 is a request to permit the face change and. to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The project also includes the establishment of a master sign program - for the shopping center . -1 mum � I ® A•FM•23C Special Sign Permit No . 91-7 has been initiated. because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 961 . (Signs) in the following area: 1 . Section 9610 . 5(b) specifies that commercial sites with less than 400 feet on one (1) frontage are permitted one (1) freestanding monument sign, maximum seven (7) feet high with 50 square feet of sign area.- The applicant is requesting the face change of an existing 15 foot non-conforming pole sign and to maintain the life of the non-conforming sign. a, _,_URROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: ,Smbiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Shopping Center North and West Qf Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) .-------- ----LAND -US£-:- --------_-_______._._-__,_._.-._--------Med i c a 1-�Bu i la i nq "•`y South of Su iect� Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND- USE: Medical Building/Mobil Station .. 4 . 0 - ENVIRONMENTAL STATU : The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 5 : 0 RED VEQpMEN'r STATtrS; Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIETr_ PLAN : Not applicable. 6 . 0 SUBDIVISION- COMMITTEE: Not applicable. Staff Report - 9/17/91 9 .0 IS5UE5 _AND ANALYSIS: Background On May 21, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No . 88-11 which established Max Market , a convenience store located in the Sterling Shopping Center . As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit the applicant is required to submit a planned sign program for the shopping center. The submittal of the planned sign program for Planning Commission action satisfies the condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No . 88-11 and closes the review process for the establishment of the use . Special Sian Permit The applicant is requesting approval of Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max - -----_-,Market . ._The _.applicant_.has--ref aced. the-- sign-. without- the- benef-it--of-- ---- obtaining a building permit - and subsequently has been cited by the Land Use Division. The applicant ' s administrative remedy to permit the sign reface prior to obtaining a building permit is to seek approval of the special sign permit request . The applicant states that the reface of the pole sign is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (see .Attachment No. 2) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard . Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is partially screened from the street by an existing building (Donuttery) and lot located directly in front of Max' s Market (see Attachment No . 3) . Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and screening of the suite by another building, the applicant requests a-pproval of the special sign permit . $-AdL "TS AntST Staff Report - 9/17/91 Staff ' s analysis of the applicant ' s request centers on the number of existing non-conforming pole signs on-site and the need for a center identification sign with major tenant identification . Currently, the site has two (2) non-conforming freestanding pole signs along the 80 foot Beach Boulevard frontage . These two (2) pole signs identify the two (2) major tenants of the center, 'Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet . In addition, the parcel directly in front of the 'L-shaped portion of the site and in front of Max Market also has a non-conforming freestanding pole sign . A total of three (3) freestanding pole signs are located along a 160 foot frontage on Beach Boulevard . Staff believes that the applicant ' s request has some merit due to the lack of street visibility, however, staff also believes that a proper sign program can also relieve some of the clutter of freestanding signs on-site and also clean up the prohibited (roof) signs of the shopping center ' s building . In addition, staff does not -recommend the granting of a special sign permit to vest the life of a non-conforming pole sign. This is in keeping with the City' s sign code and policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the aforementioned, staff does not believe that the necessary findings of fact to approve the applicant ' s request can be made. Staff does not support the special sign permit . Punned Sign Program The applicant has submitted a sign program for the Sterling Center . The sign program includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the two (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No . 4) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of --- ---_--the -sign --code -and -with- City policy -for signs along Beach---Boul-evard.--,_-_ Based upon the submittal of a viable master sign program that meets code requirements , addresses the center ' s need for center identification and major tenant identification, staff recommends that the pole sign be permitted for an interim period of a maximum two (2) years . This recommendation is based upon the fact that no remodel , new construction or new use is proposed .on site at this time. Any of the aforementioned scenarios would, however, require the implementation of the requirements of the planned sign program. Staff also recommends that the planned sign program be submitted to the Design Review Board after Planning Commission action for final review and approval . Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of his suite being blocked from view by another building. However , staff does not believe the reface of the non-conforming freestanding pole sign and maintaining the life of the sign is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard . Therefore , staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit and approval of the Staff Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0730d) planned sign program to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years . At that time the monument sign included in the planned sign program shall be constructed and the two (2) non-conforming pole signs shall be removed . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 with findings ; and B. ' Approve Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 with. findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and .replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-9 : compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant . 2. The proposed reface of a 24 square foot, non-conforming freestanding pole sign may adversely affect other signs in the area. The sign is excessive in sign height and is not proportional or compatible with the approved commercial signs in the area . 3 . The proposed sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign because of the signs excessive height and because the sign is not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED 5 GN PRQjRAM NO 91-7 : 1. Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 will provide for signage that reflects a common. theme for the proposed center incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination,- and sign type. 2 . Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 provides for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the building . 3 . The signs will be compatible with other signs in the surrounding commercial center and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned sign Program No . 91-7 . 1 Staff Report - 9/17/91 -5- �2„ NrLDITIONS OF AR]2ROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 91-7 : 1 . The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site.' plan, sign elevations and building elevations dated June 12, 1991 . 2 . The written text of Planned Sign Permit No . 91-7 shall be modified to include the following language changes : a. All corner unit signage shall comply with Article 961 . b. Length of sign cabinets shall not exceed 70% of leasehold widht . c. All .signs identified as prohibited pursuant to Article 961 Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be included in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . d. The non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign shall be permitted for a maximum of two (2) years from final approval . At the end of the two (2) year period from final approval the two (2) pole signs shall be removed and replaced by the monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 and in accordance with Article 961, Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. e. No' sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits . f . Prior to submittal for plan check, the .sign plans must be approved by "the' own-e"r or -owner' s repres"ent_a�tive---- -! y�- ` g. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the * exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord' s approval . h. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center. are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit a revised written text pursuant to Condition No . 2 . b. The Design Review Board shall review and approve all signs as proposed in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 . 9�1b Staff Report - 9/17/91 -6- (0730d) c The applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2, 000 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the two (2) on-site non-conforming freestanding pole signs . If the signs , are not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two (2) years from the date of final approval , or remodel of the property, whichever comes first , the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said signs are located and remove said signs and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of. Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if may, returned to the person depositing the bond. 4 . Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. --------5- -The---P-lanning- Commission---reserves•- the-right- to -revoke--Planned--------------- Sign Program No . 91-7 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 11. 0 _ ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings and suggested conditions of approval and approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and modified suggested conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Area map 2 . Applicant ' s Narrative 3 . Site plan and sign elevation dated October 2, 1990 4 . Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 dated June 12, 1991 HS: jl Y • z =R1 R2 ,.. i C4 L�-R2� R 2 ►"2 "' s CF—E Ri RI j ,I.I. I - —R 3 / 1. M I M I7 Y...Y(ll a 1 R 1 R3 R3 R3 R' J i C4 q AS ' 3 R` CF—E ' �3 1bllAw o JR N N 1:. . RI LR3 ,., f n n h ±RI' PO • °Ccc cr °� — _ R I R 1 R I i u {� 1 R3 R3 R3 . R3 •CI m "_..._ SOP MI ��— R2 1,1 Y2 c R2 iMI MH •� �/ ` O o p R 2 ri1 i I RI RI . a re Q N.I R2 Vs N .�: RI R2 �J 1� I R2 C4 i oP: .—„ R1 1 •'.a ar. � OP I R2 MI-CD V I i �w1 R2 ' .. ,4 o t"s%LW IIOYA D DII.ou R2 ,YI IM I.,.. mi ,,..t,•,•II �••._� ,.,,u ' I R2 R2 C4 I i SSP 90-09/PSP 91-07 HUMi1NGTON llACll HUNTFNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION I f • • 1 I f • I I • I f • t I _ I f • f I f f • f • • t • I • I f I •I f t 1 • •• I f 1 September IIt 1991 r t 1 •, . I . Huntington Beach Planning Commission Department of Community Development Huntington Beach, CA- Subject: Special Sign Permit Gentlemen: Simply stated, I cannot conduct enough business without having a street sign under any condition.��T Buf A real problem is the store has no visibility whatsoever from Main Street and from the main intersection. The store is hidden behind the old donut shop which has been closed for a few months and that makes the situation even worse, and it is also blocked by the Mobil Gas Station from the Northeast corner of Beach and Slater. (I did provide you with some pictures). This business has been here for over twenty (20) years under two different corpor_:;Ons, but ever since I took over this sign has been my biggest problem. It is frustrating to pay so much for different applications and labels and being at public hearings at the Department of Community Development so many times. It was part of the contract Aith the previous owner (Stop & Go Markets) to leave the sign for me but unfortunately they removed the sign because there was some miscommunication between the Stop & Go Markets' corporate office and district office and now I have to pay the price. I have a hard time understanding why I could keep that sign by replacing the face but I cannot have a brand new sign, less colorful and 50% smaller. I deeply appreciate'your help and cooperation in keeping this sign because my business depends on it. Sincerely, \ 0 Ahmad %lozaffari Max Food Markct \ 17438 Beach Blvd. \\ �� Huntington Beach, CA 92647 i --- --- 4 12F cl o • �l 10 - .. •• .•_ I•�..�isT.=� =.ww�w.ww -��w.w.� � .�vt.��w• wvr•� r'•nawsva.srs�n ��a i�w.w�� ay..,vw b.�,.v=�ww 11 �1� .1•�w�� InT17 Vi Ij- Ti Ir ----L I.._ -• -I- -a1- -•- ,_ 17••- ..� C .---.7 lip r1 I .r.._. : .�•--,_ _ _L. �_ _ __ �,i`- /.n�,�S�.... —h.—�.— I—!—}.._ ._�.— _�_-1_....;—I-•_l_' _i_I..1_ __ I ' 1 �_ _ �.L I- I1 r _ 11 -516►-1 9� r blaN " I ] 1 -r-- 1 • 1 I L� �1 _..... _. JI'7�zz __....._@�Acl� I��a, �._...%77•S,1.111 ! ---- .i._:._..1'Xr•F t!r •S.1'�n.fIPbCv ' i -- ---i - -- 1 _ Pk IJ I Li I—I: ' i i i _...:. -- •-SCq��1-'= I o;IO J--i- 1 ' •1 r. . 1 r j-• I 19 An. 2 _I + f --IJ._�--.-.- � Pn I,L! OL,Ll_�tk•,�i -� ' —1 ; _ a, •_�:-�}�-it I- j ! I I r I k III ! 1 � Ii1I ! t II II +IIII1�i .. �i.. 1:.I .. II. fi 1I I I1 ! 11 �1.7_ I t Ili II !_I � I_ . L�.il . • • 7 SI EFL 1 NG CENTER 1742Z - 174:Ei KAC.H FLvL. HUNT I NGTON BEACH. CA I . GENERAL Signs are not only effective as store identification. but ar•e a source of interest. excitement and rood advertising when designed with taste and in harmony with the design standards of the shopping center. The sian r•equlations herein have been established for the purpose of achieving the best possible effect -for store identification and overall design, r.hile allowing each tenant crmativity within the limits of their leaer:hold. E::perierrce has pr•ov&n that all star vs in the Center benefit by the establishment of sian controls such as herein set forth. II. APPROVALS A. The design and construction of tenant 's t2::ter•ior• sicn MUST receive written approval by the landlord and the City of Huntington Beach prior to fabrication and installation. ---------------.----__.----_-___-�._..__-___-_Lan d_l,ord,s__apPr.�ova_1__sha]1,--•bz_based-on:._..,�..-__.______.__._-.-__ �_ ..�.--�_... _..._� ...____._• 1) Conformity to the sign criteria established ior- the center, including fabrication and method of installation. ?) Harmony of the proposed sign with the design standards of the "Sterling Center". and co-tenants. Landlord has the specific right to refuse approval of any sign which does not conform to the specific criteria set ior•th herein. P. To secure landlord's approval. tenant agrees to conform to the following procedure: 1) Three copies of the detailed sign design drawing shall be submitted to landlord at: STERLING CENTER Z8=•5 BIRCH STREE•r NEWPORT BSACH. CA 9_66:1 ATTENTION: MR. J. SCOTT FAWCETT TELEPHONE: 714-756-8677 FAX NO. : 714-756-84-6 C. Unless landlord has received the above described Plans in the quantities set forth above. landlord will not approve tenant's e:cterioe sign. The sign drawings 'ar•e to be prepared by a reputable state licensed sign contractor. The sign drawings must indicate the 'following inibrmaatione 1) A scaled storefront drawing reflecting the proposed sign design and all dimensions, as it relates to the storefr-ont elevation of tenant 's premises. 2) A plot plan indicating location of tenant sign. ._) Sices of signs must be accurately dimensioned. spaced Dand drawn at a minimuw, of 1:=" � scale. 4) Section thr•OLrgh sign and facia to show its construction • methods. 5) P1u:;iglass colors. pr:nt flnrstirts, and types of matr+r.l,+ls. • STERLING CENTER 6) Interior illumination to be Eir}4 MA. high outuut fluorescent lamps on 1:1" centers ,or Even liahting. 7) Landlord may require a color- swatch o+ sign design. D. All drawings marled "Disapproved" or "Approved as Ncted" must be resubmitted as here and above set +or•th in paragraph "S" with required corrections. Tenant or its sign contractor- will not be permitted to commence installation of the e::ter•ior• sign, unless the following conditions have xcurr•ed: 1) A stamps:d set of the final sign dva•Qrngs r•r(lectinq landlord 's approval are retained at tenant S pr•F•mise5 at all times during the installation of desio_n and for- a period of thirty (ZO) days th�rc�.ttrr. 2) NOTE: No sign shall be constructed until approved building permits from the Cite of Huntington leach 8uildinq and Safety Department are received by the ten_,nt. III. GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA AND RESTRICTIONS A. Each tenant shall be allowed one illuminated sign to be located on the space and on the surface specially . provided for same on the buildinq exterior in accor•dz.nce with the drawing attached hereto. Tenant 's with a corner unit will be per•r, itted two signs providing the sign area does not e::ceed the maximum allowed by City codes. P. The advertising or information content on the sicn shall be limited to letters designating the store na-me or, established trade logo. ---C.- The-opaque aluminum face colon-foi= ahl sians�shall be ___�.. navajo white. Letter- type styles of all signs shall be subject to Landlord's approval. In the event the tenant does not have an established exterior sign identity. the landlord recommends that the lettar-inq style be designed by a sign contractor to r•e+lect a visually e::citing loon. Established trade logos and sicnage shall be permitted. providing they conform to the criter-ia described her-&in. D. The tenant shall pay for- all signs. their` installation (including final connection, and all other- labor- and material) and maintenance. Tenant 's sign contractor- must file, pay and cbtain any licenses, permits and variances as required for' sign installation. E. Interior signs (within 76" of window) . all e::posed interior neon, vinyl letters, painted showcar•ds or painted window .si.3ns must be approved by landlord and his designated consultant prior to fabrication and installation. Window signage is regulated by the City sign code. F. NOTE: pages 5 and 6 are an integral part of this e::hrblt. Please refer- to this page for- additional information. IV. FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION A. The following lnfor•mat:on 11st: materials, color•z. ,.r,c► design guidelines for• Ster•linq (:enter. the basic: arsrcri shapes, sizes, end colors must tie, followed. I • STERLING CENTER S. Fabrication shall be restricted to the following: 1) Superior Marl; "16" anodi=ed extruded aluminum cabinet. 10" deep with service access to lamps. ballasts. * anti wiring through Superior's patented swing pinned retainer system. 2) All cabinets to be 2'-6" high. Length of cabinets shall not exceed 75% of leasehold width. All cabinets . must be centered horizontally and vertically over- tenant 's store front leasehold. Please refer to Pz.ge for further information. a) Maximum height of letters is Minimum height of letters is a". No more than two rows of copy allowed. Seventy-five per- cent (75") of all copy n,ust be in English. z) High output 800 MA fluorescent interior illumination on centers for even lightinq. 4) Aluminum face designed to hang from too of cabinet to avoid face bow. Face to be tied into ;.ilrper'iGr 's ainer••sys•tem-v1a-Sup erior. s"_oatented•. "Nar1 =_1(; oCA�_,v and rod system. 5) Copy to be routed from background and backed with 3/16" thick ple::iglass. 6) Cabinet interior to have white reflective paint finish for- even lighting. 7) Sign company identification and data labels shall not be on the face of zny sign or letters. Labels should be placed on the side of cabinets and letters in an inconspicuous area. 8) It is the responsibility of the tenant 's sign contractor- to verify at the job site all conditions prior, to fabrication to insure the approved design can be fabricated and installed following all of the above requirements. C. Materials and Colors 1) Cabinet Faint Colors - Dart; Bronze ?) Aluminum Bacl;cr-ound Color - Fuzee #5661:iM Navajo White -) Letters and Logo Colors - Tenant may choose any color-, but all colors ar'e subject to landlord approval . D. Wall signs shall be brought •into conformance as n.ew tenants occupy each tenant space. E::isting wall signs will remain as is iar• all e:•:)st)ny tenants. E. Enisting Pylon Signs: The two tr::istinq pylon signs (Lamp Factory and ma:: marl:t;t) shall t-ema in as IS Until either tenant chancres. At that t:mte both pylon signs _ shall be removed ano replaced with one 7'-:r" high. 51:1 sq. ft. monument sign identifyinq the name of the center- and two tenants. See Face 6 for Design and Fabrication ^ details. • STERLING CENTER -4-. PROH18ITED SIGNS 1. SIGNS CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD No person shall install or- maintain or* cause to be installed or- maintained any sign which simulates or imitates in si<e, color. lettering or, design any traffic sign or• signal . or- which males use of the worlds "STOP"', "L00K", "DANGER or- any other- words. phrases, symbols, or• characters in such a manner to interfere with, mislead or• confuse traffic. 2. IMMORAL OR UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING It shall be unlawful for- any person to e::hihit, post or disolav cause to be e::hlblted, posted or- displayer] upon anv sion, an:•thinq of an obscene, indecent, or, immoral nature or- unlawful activity. C. SIGNS OR DOORS, WINDOWS OR FIRE ESCAPES No window siSns will be permitted P::cept as noted herein. No sign shall be installed, relocated, or* maintained so as to prevent free ingress to or• egg-ess from any door-. No siqn of any kind shall be attached to a stand pipe e::cept those suns, as required by code or, ordinance. 4. ANIMATED. AUDIBLE OR MO:rING SIGNS Signs consisting of any moving, swinging, r-etatinq, flashing. blinking, scintillating, fluctuating or, otherwise animated light are prohibited. 5. VEHICLE SIGNS Signs on or affi::ed to trucks, automobiles, trailers. or- other- vehicles which advertise, Identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries of sales or merchandise or rendering of services from such vehicles, is prohibited. b. LIGHT BULB STRINGS AND EXPOSED TUBING External displays. other than temporary decorative holiday lighting, .wh.i_ch._c.on.s.ist__of. _unsh.ielded._light_bulbs..__and. open. exposed neon or gaseous light tubing. are prohibited. 7. Interior window sign of any type must have prior approval of landlord be+ore installation. S. No portable signage stating restrictive parking or exclusive parking shall be allowed unless specifically noted in lease. a STERLING.CRI/he Stan Janocha June 1_. .y�1 i 7 14o i SL co�-3 S "�OL.Aj `2-io A tx.r TIA AA..OLJVAAEr n La�•�p s Silo �� - 1�d1� �«.►.� • r 6 f . • � 1ll��l:I�� L. ,v —o �....�ou_.i�T l v 11.11• L!Il INWA �I_aL ��r^( palmt y STERLING CENTER �. a t a LAMPS L,ck;..V, FACTORY. OUTLET QmTMfflU , u e ► . ` L BEER & WINE 17422-17438PU� w- , ,A,,, ..O, g ' -�Lca..i•.t�. ��Lf�� r-1(.Cup ls�uc.s..�.. ...�.�./-c.aJ� � � oIG1J L'.511's.�/A�'�o►�1 "fin.: .�q • 1-0 C is • L m • F'1,j2,f ID tkTFL4Avg:D f'+umit4um [,,�8Ln1E7r-o FM►wm or- Ntim. • pOtmx).OL(T /•d.wril NUM r^4x p bmcf.EP•L.IP Yjn-R;Z�- c- W 5 •(�Of�� LOL-OL+4 'IUD ro".Ow . C U&,Tvm r^j!s ATty A-UH I NU H P6 pe-,T^L AmY T V XC a),xTTA • I14TLV40PL ILI,UtiINATIl7IJ '[t7 BG 0GL7 H16H curpLC7' PL.OIlR it,E]JT l S, w Ul w v aTmsc� 1�II1�IJTs�ar• � f"�s��T�� 'p"�u✓T�+". It(�� 1D.r (..err..) �.+...t•!=+-kx0 wIC11'd � 1D.f( 'I9.� �l�I�1, O • 0 1 � 1 . ,� 'I IS.Z'(nti•ax.) or lJrr..6G Fb Lt! wIC`I'H � � ' f—G il r+..�u••. -_.r.r Ifs' "-Qf 0/2 Ill-I.�MII-�.ATGt7 WALL J�j L� I — �.sa)f•I.:�C11o.CL M•��1t r/o•/.ti.JOA1ta.O.ra stYYbJP�a7 a�-ll^�IIh�M e-�•••IIJO�"(. � 101�i�W TN �oF/VIGa ...GG'.Jllla> ^IW 6.o�alrfi.•.. - �Tq ...r-JO MP 1�b 7Fr�.'K/6H xJNrsRI�Q14 A�T*�4JT�.0 o..lr+lo ^w.►�-A ' I 1�1+► s►itiJ..�sQ.e•��1��• M .... -• o I../orT r 7d¢..a. L�6 Mor-1.La.tilo 7►-� ol� G....rol/-1�Ta -..�. 1-1e,T e:><aj�.•�,Tj 'f�X ^r'Lm.ar.ouD w1�N.�.1..� co..gr-�aT� nwaT �{+ U I/� •- .-(IGH oUyl'\JT M•► I+a.aJof�f aa�.JT UJTIi+�flola ILWw^II•+�.T/s1.J ol._I .u'.arll,.p�•• �P �.v1�oF10 1 ((a -'^fl-l—T Ia11JT ar7/-oi�b r IvpFt�a Imssol.lrJ� ArL-4JM11...JUM {r'I4340 M t„1�...a�Jo wl-IITrq. LJ.-f-rr.w a. a,�.Jv L.o1io colol2v-,•.e,..l.��l-r .w..�( c.d�o+.a wp.A( �-• • • ,�� cv�oA� - ouwcc-r T�_-.:v�.•+oo..:ono I f • ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Applicant's Request) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is not provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. 2. The proposed pole signs do not adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are not excessive in sign height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 3. The proposed signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because the signs are not excessive in height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. SUGGF,§IM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- SPECIAL. SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan and sign elevation dated August 19, 1993. 2. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. Prior to submittal for planycheck.the sign-pl ans must-be-approved by the owner-or - -- - owner's representative. 4. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord's approval. 5. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 6. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. hflp194 � 1 . 1 • • RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF SSP NO. 93-11 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: I September 18, 1995 . . RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORW ED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial Gz City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM (Below • . For Only) n�e r Council/Agency Meeting Held. ` Deferred/Continued to: 9—a� g� ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Department ID Number: CD 95-009 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator00 PREPARED BY: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the Marc , 1994 City Council meeting) Statement of issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action, Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by former Council Member Jim Silva of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993 (see Attachment No. 1). The public hearing was continued open from the March 7, 1994, City Council meeting in order to allow the Sign Code Committee to conclude their review of the existing sign ordinance. The Sign Code Committee has not completed their review nor has a recommendation on the revisions been presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The committee is expected to conclude the review of the ordinance in approximately six (6) months. Funding Source: Not Applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing open on Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 to the City Council meeting of September 18, 1995." Analysis: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by n �a_�-� ��s-{I�` Y a{,t:tr-..ir __ __;a - - -- -_ r__• �:--- -- .sic i---- -` ---- - ----` t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACON Meeting Date: 03/06/95 Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 (Continued from the March 7, 1994 City Council meeting) CD 95-009 Alternative Action(s): The Council may take one of the following alternative actions: 1. Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). 2. Approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 by approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No. 4 of the Request For Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 (see Attachment No. 1). Attachment(s): Page Number 1. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated March 7, 1994 I CD95-009.DOC -2- 02/07/95 8:36 AM • • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Scott Hess, Senior Planner FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Appeal DATE: March 8, 1994 Art DeLaLoza discovered the fact that on 3/7/94 Council's motion to approve the appeal failed and the failure resulted in the Planning Commission's denial being sustained. Council subsequently approved a motion which continued the hearing to March 7, 1995. Please ask Art DeLaLoza to write the City Clerk a memo stating there is no problem with this hearing being held September 18, 1995 as a continued open public hearing even though on March 7, 1994 Council accidentally sustained the Planning Commission and denied Special Sign Permit No. 93-11. Art DeLaLoza said he was going to work out a solution to this problem, which he had brought to the attention of the City Clerk. cc: Art DeLaLoza, Deputy City Attorney g:\cc\escmite\hess I ATTACHMENT # 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 7, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator lJ� Prepared by: Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development` Subject: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Consistent with Council Policy? [X) Yes [ ) New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachment STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for City Council consideration is an appeal by Council Member Jim Silva (See Attachment .No. 1) of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993. Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would allow one seven feet high multi- tenant monument sign. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECEMBER Z, 1993: THE MOTION MADE BY COOK, SECOND BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 WITH FINDINGS, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE: AYES: COOK, GORMAN, BIDDLE, RICHARDSON, DETTLOFF,NEWMAN, INGLEE NOES: NONE AB STAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION PASSED dor ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also, included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center located at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (Sterling Center). The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit and approved the planned sign program. The planned sign program stipulated that the two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs that identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two years through Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired on September 17, 1993, and requires the removal of the two pole signs. The two signs are to be replaced by one code conforming seven feet high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. The monument sign will include the name of the center, provide signage for the two businesses, and provide identification for two additional tenants. Special Sign Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft. of sign area) and Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft. of sign area). Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building. Lamp's Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is also partially screened by the existing building. On the basis of the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building , the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. Staff believes that two freestanding' signs along the 80 feet of street frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot that adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent lot is the location of the building (Rodeo Mexican Restaurant) that obstructs the retail center requesting retention of their signs. Therefore, there are three freestanding signs pole signs along a 160 foot frontage of Beach Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is excessive and cluttered and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an improvement of signage. The new monument sign will continue to provide the two tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. RCA-3/7/94 2 I In addition, the existing two freestanding signs are incompatible with the center to the north along Beach Boulevard (Holland Center). This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 would be inconsistent with the Holland Center sign. Staff believes that the monument sign permitted by code for Sterling Center will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request based upon the two pole signs being incompatible with approved signs in the area. Analysis of the Appeal I The appeal filed by Council Member Jim Silva is based upon; 1) the city's current economic climate, 2) the fact that the city is currently reviewing the zoning regulations for signs in the city and, 3) the retention of non-conforming signs not the establishment of new non-conforming signs. Staffs analysis of the appeal will focus on the review of the zoning regulations by the Sign Code Committee and the retention of the non-conforming signs, not the economic climate of the city. The Sign Code Committee is composed of City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City staff. The Subcommittee's recommendations for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard is to allow lots with 200-400 feet of frontage to have max. 10 feet high freestanding signs in lieu of 7 feet high signs. No code changes are proposed that would affect the applicant's property. The Planning Commission approved these changes to the sign code in October 1993, and are pending before the City Council. The retention of the two non-conforming signs, not the establishment of non-conforming signs is the next point of the appeal. Through the limited sign permit process, staff believes that the applicant has already enjoyed the privilege of retaining the two non-conforming signs for a maximum period of two years. The premise of this process is to allow non-conforming signs to re- faced and remain during the establishment period of a new business. Therefore, the applicant has been given the opportunity to open for business and not be burdened with the additional economic hardship of an entirely new sign. Staff does not support the appellants point. ,Staff believes that the center and the businesses have been granted this period and more, and therefore, the signs are no longer necessary to identify a new business or site. In addition, other signs in the area have been brought into conformance with the code and the retention of these signs will be detrimental to newly established code conforming signs in the area. Staff believes that the signs should now be removed as required by the implementation of the planned sign program. RCA-3/7/94 3 Conclusion In reviewing the appeal and the applicant's request, staff believes that the request should be denied based upon the analysis and the findings that; 1) that the strict compliance with the Sign Ordinance will not be an economic hardship, 2) the retention of two non-conforming signs on 80 feet of frontage will adversely affect other signs in the area and, 3) the retention of two non-conforming signs will be detrimental to property in the vicinity. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may approve the appeal and approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No.4. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal letter dated 12/17/93 from Council Member Jim Silva 2. Findings for Denial dated 12/7/93 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12/7/93 4. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Applicant's Request) MTU:MF:HZ:hffiV 11 RCA - 3/7/94 4 LJ. fe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Va" CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON!EACH E=7 S rn c-a x 111 ' - v U rn TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk - FROM: Jim Silva, City Council Member w DATE: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Appeal to the Planning Commission Denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The request is to retain two existing pole signs located in the Sterling Center at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). The reason for this appeal is as follows: The city is currently reviewing the requirements of zoning regulations for signs in light of the city's current economic climate. Therefore any approval for a modified sign would be based on speculation of the regulations for the new sign code. The request is for the retention of two non conforming signs not the establishment of new non conforming; therefore, this request would not add to the number of non conforming signs. In addition to the above stated-reasons, I feel that the City Council should have the desire and responsibility to retain business in Huntington Beach. I further believe that the Council should make the final decision on matters which directly effect the economic conditions of the community. xc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator �N-r- Q0 . Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 I December 10, 1993 J. Scott Fawcett 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach , CA 92660 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs . LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: December 7, 1993 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 93-11 : 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years. 2 . The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area . The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in. the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of. frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 2. Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Page Two I hereby certify that Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 was denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on December 7, 1993, upon the foregoing findings . Sincerely, Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission by: Scot ess Senior Planner . n (7969d-23) huntington beach department of community develcpment STAff REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 7 . 1993 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 93-11 (17422-17438 Beach Boulevard) Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission denied Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 which was a request to reface one (1) of the two (2) non-conforming pole signs on-site, but approved Planned Sign Program No . 91-7. The approval of the planned sign program allowed the retention of the two (2) pole signs for a maximum period of two (2) years (Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9) with the stipulation that the signs be removed and replaced with a seven (7) foot high monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . Staff does not support the applicant' s request because the applicant has already enjoyed the privilage of the use of the two (2) pole signs for a period of two (2) years, the signs are excessive in height, and the -retention of two (2) poles signs on 80 feet of frontage is in violation of the sign code and is not in keeping with the policy of signs along Beach Boulevard. Staff recommends denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which would allow the two (2) non-conforming signs to be retained with findings for denial . 3 -16 A-PL•FM•23D 0 Q ®. SOISA �. s� pO $ g da• Mc r IN _ crNm MINGER i ♦ HEII. WARNER ♦ ♦ SIATER s ♦ AISM ♦ rius z ARP SITE vORKTOwN "AM 1MUNA US • BAMING m F IRS SSP 93.011 •� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December .7, 1993 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 APPLICANT/ J. Scott Fawcett PROPERTY 3835 Birch Street OWNER,: Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs. LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE ACCEPTED: November 23 , 1993 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial EXISTING USE: Shopping Center . ACREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 square feet) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to : "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings . " 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high. non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . �O 3 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Medical Building/Service Station West of Subiect Property . (Across Beach Boulevard) : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: . The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 .0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit but approved the planned sign program with the stipulation that the two (2) 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs which identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two (2) years through Limited Sign Permit No . 91-9 . Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired Staff Report - 12/7/93 -2- (7458d) on September .17, 1993 and requires the removal of the two (2) pole signs . The signs are to be replaced by a single seven (7) foot high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. Planned Sian Program The Master Sign Program for Sterling Center includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No . 3) . The planned sign program substantially . .complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along . Beach Boulevard. Special Sian Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two (2) pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft . of sign area) and for Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft . of sign area) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building. Lamps Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is partially screened by the existing building. Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit . Staff believes that two (2) freestanding signs along the 80 feet of frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot which adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent lot is the location of the building which obstructs the retail center requesting the retention of their signs . Therefore, there are three (3) freestanding pole signs along a 160 foot frontage along Beach Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is cluttered and excessive and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an, improvement of signage and also will continue to provide the two (2) tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. An example of improved signage along Beach Boulevard is the Holland Center (Centerfield Sports Bar) . This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Staff believes that the monument sign will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as the small shopping center. Design Review Board On October 21, 1993 , the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed sign for colors, materials and design only. The Board did not comment or make any recommendations regarding the special sign ^ , permit request . The Board did recommend the colors , materials and �V Staff Report - 12/7/93 -3- (7458d) design of the signs for the retail center as required and depicted' in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . The recommendation was by unanimous vote. Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of the suites being blocked from view by another building . However, staff does not believe the retention of the non-conforming freestanding pole signs and maintaining the life of the signs is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard . Therefore, . staff is recommending denial of the special. sign permit . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11 : 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in .a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No.' 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years . 2 . The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area . The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 with findings and suggested conditions bf approval . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant ' s Narrative 2. Site plan and sign elevation dated August 19 , 1993 3 . Monument sign, Planned sign Program No. 91-7 4 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 17, 1991 5 . Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval SH: F:ss 13 Staff Report - 12/7/93 -4- (7458d) STERLING CENTER 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach,, CA 92660 (714) 756--8677 August 19,, 1993 _ . Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Sterling Center 17422-38 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Dear Commissioners: We are requesting a special sign permit for the purpose of maintaining the existing sign program at the subject shopping center. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 allows the two existing pole signs identifying_ a lamp store and market to remain until September 17, 1993. If we are required to remove the pole signs,. these two businesses will suffer a further loss of sales. This is because an existing Mexican Restaurant, not a part of Sterling Center, blocks the visability of these businesses. Due to the declining economy and resultant reduction of income, we do not have the money to replace these signs. Banks have refused our request to borrow money to build a new monument sign structure along with new signs. The shopping center is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site. We are hopeful that the Commission will understand the hardship we are faced with and act favorably upon our request. Sincerely yours, STERLING CENTER J. Scott Fawcett General Partner JSF/ke Enclosures , I , MAXIMA OK g ' ' FACTORY BEER LAMPS °OUTLET , LARGE SHADE DEPT. MARKET ter- ---- - , 211• DWY. r,vy SiERUNG CENTER ' EASEMENT I e' 1ICiL roll _ e' SIELL ruts v 8 :�•r rJ+iAr OrIF 8 �------� •• g Ytis` V e000 414 T 22 y t RESTAURANT - ' �h • I r STUL POLK llf STra POLL NOT A PART �I f i 'LAMPS" POLE SIGN I� 1�0 1 I -MAX PULE SIGN , (POLE SIGN , �-`—� --- ---�=�-- I ASPHALT ASPHALT ---- _ -- DEACN BLVD -------AV— ` N.T.S. N.T.S. EXISTING SIGNS AND PULES STERUNG CENTER A.P./ 107-312-03 SCAIE: I' - 20' DRAWN FOR: STERLING CENTER •3035 BIRCH STREET �TIC,R I..,1 N C C ENTER NEWPORT RE;ACI1, CA. OZ660 J� r SCOTT FAWCETT. 17.122-":313 BEACH BOULEXARU GENERAL PARTNER (714) 750-0077 {I(JN'f'INC�'I'ON 131?AC'I-{, CA. _O6 Irl'rl r 1 (r omd B-= y l_S sir`( ^0R STERLING CENTER 3 ' I' 4 L MPS -1 ,moo Ytr z o Leo MARKET Q 0 - BEER & WINE 41s"i11° L 'i '17422-17438 „sr "ro,JT F I� r ��• a �' (vlucvL/a wv./JtrzO) j , t ,,: - JI GIJ �Lts.in.TiorJ -its+.: �q - 1-0 . a tT � I: O > -� f 10• EKTRI(O6D A-Lut-(04Utt'1 CJ+bINEty t�°dNTtD pFF 1VH1TE. •L ril � ` PotrrcD•OKT r-4-uHt r-Klr, t3&zA-7 P>'C«�•t tP WITN vGac�/1.1G TiL. W� r0 •GOP GOt-OAS• TD row ow ICL . Ll.#-,T7R1 p*.UWx+G-*Tw A-ur-UNUH PEpE,T^L./MyTVM CD_,TjUv. • W Tt¢ I I.t.id H t t 1ATI MI eG r+4 146N Ot 1TAd r t"t ot ,(pJT'cAwr-7. = w I Ln w 1 • IM huntington beach department of community development STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September 17, 1991 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-9/PLA14NED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 91-1 i APPLICANT: Ahmed Mozaffari/Max Market DATE ACCEPTED: 17438 Beach Boulevard September 6, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Sterling Center November 5, 1991. OWNER: 217 S. Violet Lane Orange, CA 92669 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REOUEST: To permit the face change of a non-conforming 15 foot GENERAL PLAN: General freestanding pole sign (Max Commercial Market) and the establish- ment of a sign program for EXISTING USE: Shopping the shopping center. Center LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard ACREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 sf) (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north Slater Avenue) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to: A. "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-9. with findings; and" B. "Approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign fo r a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. " 2 . Q GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 in conjunction with Planned .Sign Program No. 91-7 is a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The project also includes the establishment of a master sign program for the shopping center . \1 IRMSPIA•FM•23C ,.1_ L Special Sign Permit No . 91-7 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 961 , (Signs) in the following area : 1. Section 9610 . 5(b) specifies that commercial sites with less than 400 feet on one (1) frontage are permitted one (1) freestanding monument sign, maximum seven (7) feet high with 50 square feet of sign area.- The applicant is requesting the face change of an existing 15 foot non-conforming pole sign and to maintain the life of the non-conforming sign. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Shopping Center North and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND- USE: Medical Building/Mobil Station 4 . 0 - ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. L0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION- COMMITTEE: Not applicable. h t Staff Report - 9/17/91 -2- (0730d) 9 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On May 21, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No . 88-11 which established Max Market , a convenience store located in the Sterling Shopping Center . As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit the applicant is required to submit a planned sign program for the shopping center. The submittal of the planned sign program for Planning Commission action satisfies the condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No . 88-11 and closes the review process for the establishment of the use. Special Sian Permit The applicant is requesting approval of Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The applicant has refaced the sign without the benefit of obtaining a building permit and subsequently has been cited by the Land Use Division. The applicant ' s administrative remedy to permit the sign reface prior to obtaining a building permit is to seek approval of the special sign permit request. The applicant states that the reface of the pole sign is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (see -Attachment No. 2) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is partially screened from the street by an existing building (Donuttery) and lot located directly in front of Max' s Market (see Attachment No. 3) . Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and screening of the suite by. another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit . 0._^L K A-A.A r-e SYz e_'a CT c e- cocT'-4 1 �. �.A--p5 ,TS �acixK tee. -cc c Y aMsr ,.s` A. Staff Report - 9/17/91 -3- (0730d) Staff ' s analysis of the applicant ' s request centers on the number of existing non-conforming pole signs on-site and the need for a center identification sign with major tenant identification. Currently, the site has two (2) non-conforming freestanding pole signs along the 80 foot Beach Boulevard frontage. These two (2) pole signs identify the two (2) major tenants of the center, Max Market and Lamps Factory' Outlet. In addition, the parcel directly in front of the 1-shaped portion of the site and in front of Max Market also has a non-conforming freestanding pole sign. A total of three (3) freestanding pole signs are located along a 160 foot frontage on Beach Boulevard . Staff believes that the applicant ' s request has some merit due to the lack of street visibility, however , staff also believes that a proper sign program can also relieve some of the clutter of freestanding signs on-site and also clean up the prohibited (roof) signs of the shopping center ' s building . In addition, staff does not recommend the granting of a special sign permit to vest the life of a non-conforming pole sign. This is in keeping with the City' s sign code and policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the aforementioned, staff does not believe that the necessary findings of fact to approve the applicant ' s request can be made. Staff does not support the special sign permit . Planned Sian Program The applicant has submitted a sign program for the Sterling Center . The sign program includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for .business identification and a center identification monument sign with the two (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No. 4) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the submittal of a viable master sign program that meets Code requirements, addresses the center ' s need for center identification and major tenant identification, staff recommends that the pole sign be permitted for an interim period of a maximum two (2) years . This recommendation is based upon the fact that no remodel, new construction or new use is proposed .on site at this time. Any of the aforementioned scenarios would, however, require the implementation of the requirements of the planned sign program. Staff also recommends that the planned sign program be submitted to the Design Review Board after Planning Commission action for final review and approval . Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of his suite being blocked from view by another building . However , staff does not believe the reface of the non-conforming freestanding pole sign and maintaining the life of the sign is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard . Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit and approval of the tip Staff Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0730d) planned sign program to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years . At that time the monument sign included in the planned sign program shall be constructed and the two (2) non-conforming pole signs shall be removed. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff, recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 with findings ; and B. ' Approve Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-9 . 1 . Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant . 2. The proposed reface of a 24 square foot, non-conforming freestanding pole sign may adversely affect other signs in the area. The sign is excessive in sign height and is . not proportional or compatible with the approved commercial signs in the area . 3 . The proposed sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign because of the signs excessive height and because the sign is not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO 91-7 : 1. Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 will provide for signage that reflects a common- theme for the proposed center incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2 . Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 provides for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the building . 3 . The signs will be compatible with other signs in the surrounding commercial center and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned sign Program No . 91-7 . 2 � Staff Report - 9/17/91 -5- (0730d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 91-7 : 1 . The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan, sign elevations and building elevations dated June 12, 1991 . 2 . The written text of Planned Sign Permit No . 91-7 shall be modified to include the following language changes : a. All corner unit signage shall comply with Article 961 . b. Length of sign cabinets shall not exceed 70% of leasehold widht . c.. All .signs identified as prohibited pursuant to Article 961 Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be included in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . d. The non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign shall be permitted for a maximum of two (2) years from final approval . At the end of the two (2) year period from final approval the two (2) pole signs shall be removed and replaced by the monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 and in accordance with Article 961, Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. .e. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits . f...Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be .approved by the owner or owner ' s representative. g. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the , exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot- and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord' s approval . h. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the Applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit a revised written text pursuant to Condition No . 2 . b. The Design Review Board shall review and approve all signs as proposed in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 . Staff Report - 9/17/91 -6- (0730d) c The applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2, 000 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the two (2) on-site non-conforming freestanding pole signs . If the signs, are not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two (2) years from the date of _final approval, or remodel of the property, whichever comes first, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said signs are located and remove said signs and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if may, returned to the person depositing the bond. 4 . Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 5 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings and suggested conditions of approval and approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and modified suggested conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Area map 2 . Applicant ' s Narrative 3 . Site plan and sign elevation dated October 2, 1990 4 . Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 dated June 12, 1991 HS:-IiWkjl Staff Report - 9/_17/91 -7- (0730d) .may .. �--T RZ ^0;tu.. +t R2 R2 I n2 I •c.4 3 RI • RI M 1 + w.,tMtas o�, at- ---- RI RI CF-E R 3 • MI M I I .Y[w SLNtM:I .....7+LLL oa •� __ — j R3 R3 I I- R 3 R I "�I : C4: F4OAK ` . j Ry—fa 3 RI CF_E IIOLt�W IL.,.2 RI Rl 3 N N RI . w In RT to s► n In i RI-1 PD R3 a ` a a oc a W. W. - _� R I RI R I • x d j uR3 R R3 R3 „ R3 m ..._ , SOP s M• r - I F� F J R2 o MI MH ` v Y I M R2 R2 ..,.. 2,..., .e RI O •__ R I i --. _ • - ,. 1 c4 � R3 I a" tom:: R . a cv 'I � • I I � RI MI M I R3 "�1 R2 ,mot T7, a; .R2 R3 - R2 C4 _ `' ., ai R IL. t ii" ' .v p FMICD MI R2 ' .. J ..... n t ' I o ,,, I OP via 0 ' Ml R2 .. .,.. .,.. ..,.. �. - • S R2 V c4 I I SSP 90-09/PSP 91-07 Mt1NTINGTON{EACIt HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION f • 1 I• . • f . t. September 11, 1991 1 I h f f ! !'1 I ! • 1 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Department of Community Development Huntington Beach, C.A. Subject: Special Sign Permit Gentlemen: Simply stated, I cannot conduct enough business without having a street sign under any condition. But'the real problem is the store has no visibility whatsoever from Main Street and from the main intersection. The store is hidden behind the old donut shop which has been closed for a few months and that makes the situation even worse, and it is also blocked by the Mobil Gas Station from the Northeast corner of Beach and Slater. (I did provide you with some pictures). This business has been here for over twenty (20) years under two different corporations, but ever since I took over this sign has been my biggest problem. It is frustrating to pay so much for different applications and labels and being at public hearings at the Department of Community Development so many times. It was part of the contract with the previous owner (Stop & Go Markets) to leave the sign for me but unfortunately they removed the sign because there was some miscommunication between the Stop & Go Markets' corporate office and district office and now I have to pay the price. I have a hard time understanding why I could keep that sign by replacing the face but I cannot have a brand new sign, less colorful and 50% smaller. I deeply appreciate your help and cooperation in keeping this sign because my business depends on it. ` Sincerely, // Ahmad %4o7-affari Max Food Markct 17438 Beach Blvd. \��+ Huntington Beach, CA 92647 .. ----- ------- --- O • 1 - - - , .. i —.:._:-___— •_'-_--�--� = �-- �-� - "_' r` --�'�`a:r-�_-.•�--�_ • -=�—= —=-.�t=-� � �� _—sue ... • ►.tee � `.tea-+.•.roe..e�� --- ' i __�._I- 1--1__•-_ _�.I_I__-- ' 1_._+-��1 _-I-1-'- _I.T _;��-•�.FR.I-.-,_r.� ' • I -- -- -• - - LA .I. 1 • r- 1 .i.. _ _. _ --I- -I-- ---. ---- '--- -�__. .�. . .F-- ..�Vie'�ww' ' �--��-• I ---•--- --- -�- �.�; _I. --- +-�—�� }-- L . ....._._ .+. ....... jJ Fpi- 1 117 �z BEACH P ��- , . 1 � •S.�G.vf�IPb[v � I 1, 4 teogj I � I _.... .....I - ._._ ._-_-- - —_._._- -�- ! 41 I, ..: . , . . , ,. . . . _.._I :.L� -• �- --• - -L._°_�_._"_ �.... -- 'I I I I I .V. .I !_! �_I : i ...� i._; I �.:.11 �1.1., .f_ 1!:I,li.il..._ !-L 44- _ TI t' ` ST EFL)14G CENTER 1 74C= - 1 7 t:.Ei ErE.ACH i+LVL. HUNT I NGTO14 BEACH. CAA I . GENERAL_ 'Signs are not only effective as store identification, but ar-e a source of interest, excitement and good advertisinq when designed with taste and in harmony with the design standards of the shopping center. The sign regulations herein have been established for the purpose of .achieving the best possible effect for store identification and overall design. while allowing each tenant creativity within the limits of their- leasehold. E::perience has proven that all stores in the Center benefit by the establishment of sian controls such as herein set forth. II. APPROVALS A. The design and construction of tenant 's exterior, sian MUST receive written approval by the )andlord and the City of br o Huntington reach prior- to fabrication and installation. Landlord's approval shall be based. on: 1) Confor-mity to the sign cr-iter•ia established for- the. center. including fabrication and method of installation. ?) Harmony of the proPos-ed sign with the design standards of the "Sterling Center," and co-tenants. Landlord has the specific right to refuse approval of any sign which does not conform to the specific criteria set forth herein. H. To secure landlord's approval. tenant agrees to con-form to the following procedure: 1) Three copies of the detailed sign design drawing shall be submitted to landlord at: STERLING CENTER Z•8'5 BIRCH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9?660 ATTENTION: MR. J. SCOTT FAWCETT TELEPHONE: 714-756-8677 FAX NO. : 714-756-84-6 C. Unless landlord has received the above described plans in the quantities set forth above, landlord will not approve tenant's exter-iorr sign. The sign drawings� .ar-e to be pr•epar•ed by a reputable state licensed sign contr•actor•. The sign drawings must indicate th•e following infor-mation: 1) A scaled storefront drawing reflecting the proposed sign design and all dimensions, as it relates to the storefront elevation of tenant 's premises. 2) A plot plan indicating location of tenant siqn. _) Sizes of signs must be accurately dimensioned, spaced and drawn at a minimum of 1. =" s 1 .-1}" scale. 4) Section through sign and facia to show its construction y� methods. a' 5) F•le::iglass colors. pa:-t flnrstir:es, and tvpes of mate-•rr;al3. STERLING CENTER 6) lnter•ior- illumination to be t+iXi MA. high outuut fluorescent lamps on 10" center's Tor raven liahtinq. 7) Landlord may require a color• swatch o+ siyn design. D. All drawings mar•(;ed "Disapproved" or• "Appr'ovPd as Noted" must be re-submitted as here and above set +ot,th in par•agr•aph "P" with required corrections. tenant or its sign contractor will not be permitted to commence installation of the exterior• sign, unless the following conditions have occurred: 1) A stampard set of the final s2Ur•. dr-a•yings r-(•flPct+nq landlord 's approval at-e r•etained at tenant s prr.niises at all times during the installation of design and for- a period of thirty (_0) days th�rE&ttrr i) NOTE: No sign shall be constructed until approved building permits from the City of Huntington beach Buildinq and Safety Department are -- ceived by the tenant. III. GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA AND RESTRICTIC14S A. Each tenant shall be allowed one illuminated sian to be located on the space and on the surface specially provided for same on the building eterior in acc�rda.nce with the drawing attached hereto. Tenant 's with a corner- unit will be perrritted two signs providing the sign area does not e::ceed the maximum allowed by City codes. P. The advertising or information content on the sign shall be limited to letters designating the store name or• established trade logo. C. The.opaque aluminum face color• for• all signs shall be navajo white. Letter• type styles of all signs shall be subject to Landlord's approval. In the event the tenant does not have an established e::ter-ior• sign identity, the landlord recommends that the lettaring style be desioneri by a sign contractor• to r•e+lect a visually exciting look. Established trade logos and sianage shall be per•miited. providing they conform to the criteria described herein. D. The tenant shall pay for• all signs, their• installation (including final connection, and all other- labor, and material) and maintenance. Tenant 's sign contractor must ' file, pay and obtain any licenses, permits and variances as required for- sign installation. E. Interior signs (within '.•6" of window) . all e::posed interior neon, vinyl le.tter•s, painted showcar•ds or- painted window si.lns must be approved by landlord and his designated consultant prior• to fabrication and installation. Window signage is regulated by the City sign code. F. NOTE: pages 5 and 6 are an integral part of this e::hibit. Please refer to this paqe for• additional information. IV. FAPRICATION AND INSTALLATION A. The followinq infor•mat:on lists materials, colot-s. elld design guidelines for• Sterling (:enter•. the basis_ ce,,3,an shapes. sizes, and colors must be 4oi lowed. STERLING CENTER E. Fabrication shall be restricted to the followinq: 1) Superior Mar-): "1(j" anodized extruded aluminum cabinet. 10" deep with service access to lamps. ballasts, and wiring through Superior 's patented swing pinned retainer system. 2) All cabinets to be -6" high. Length of cabinets shall not exceed 75% of leasehold width. All cabinets . must be centered horizontally and vertically over- tenant's store front leasehold. Please refer to Page 5 for• further information. a) Maximum height of letters is 20". Minimum height of letters is R". No more than two rows of copy allowed. Seventy-five per cent (757) cf all copy must be in English. 3) High output 800 MA fluorescent interior illumination on centers for even lightinq, 4) Aluminum face designed to hanq from top of cabinet to avoid face bow. Face to be tied into Superior 's retainer system via Superior s patented "Mark- )ir" Pao and rod system. 5) Copy to be routed from bacicgr•oUnd and bac)::ed with 3/16" thick: ple::ialass. 6) Cabinet interior to have white reflective paint finish for- even lighting. 7) Sign company identification and data labels shall not be on the face of any sign or letters. Labels should be placed on the side of cabinets and letters in an inconspicuous area. 8) It is the responsibility of the tenant 's sign contractor to verify at the job site all conditions prior to fabrication to insure the approved design can be fabricated and installed following all of the above requirements. C. Materials and Colors 1) Cabinet Faint Colors - Dark Bronze 2) Aluminum BackgrOUnd Color - Frazee #5660M Navajo White -) Letters and Logo Colors - Tenant may choose any color-, but all colors Sr-e subject to landlord approval. D. Wall signs shall be brought into conformance as new tenants occupy each tenant space. E::istinq wall signs will remain as is Tor• all e::istrng tenants. E. E::isting Pylon Signs: The two e::istinq pylon signs (Lamp Factory and Mai:: Marl:Qt) shall remain as is until either tenant changvS. At that time both pylon signs shall be removed ano replaced with one 7 '-)" high, 5il sq. ft. monument sion' identifyinq .the name of the center and two tenants. See F'age 6 tor• Design and Fabrication details. STERLING CEN1'ER -4- PROHIBITED SIGNS 1. SIGNS CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD No pet-son shall install or• maintain or• cause to be installed or- maintained any sign which simulates or• imitates in size, color% lettering or• design any traffic sign or• signal , or- which males use of the words "STOP", "LOOK", "DANGER", or• an,., other- words. phrases, symbols, or• char•acter•s in such a manner• to inter•fer-e with, mislead or• confuse traffic. 2. IMMORAL OR UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING It shall be Unlawful for any person to e::hihit. post or display cause to be e::nlbited, posted or• displayed upun any sion, an:•thinq of an obscene, indecent, or• immoral nature or unlawful activity. :. SIGNS OR DOORS. WINDOWS OR FIRE ESCAPES No window signs will be permitted except as noted herein. No sign shall be installed, relocated, or maintained so as to prevent free ingress to or• egress from any door•. No sign of anv t::ind shall be attached to a stand pipe except those sions, as r•egUir,ed by code or• ordinance. 4. ANIMATED. AUDIBLE OR MOPING SIGNS Signs consisting of any moving, swinging, rotating, flashing. blinking, scintillating, fluctuating or• otherwise animated liqht ar•e prohibited. S. VEHICLE SIGNS Signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailees. or- other- vehicles which advertise, Identify, or• provide direction to a use or• activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries of sales or merchandise or• r•enderinq of services from such vehicles, is prohibited. 6. LIGHT BULB STRINGS AND EXPOSED TUBING External displays. other- than tempor•arry decorative holiday lighting, which consist of unshielded light bulbs. and open. exposed neon or gaseous light tubing, ar•e prohibited. 7. Interior window sign of any type must have prior• approval of landlord be+or•e installation. B. No portable signage stating r•estr�ictive par-king or• exclusive parking shall be allowed unless specifically noted in lease. STERLING.CRI/he Stan Janocha O June 12. :Y1 MAemT N IIi oZ �ccal-� �t�,►..�s -ra 't�� • � Il��l: lfi: f bl-e c..��e�r-.�a.►T 11.111 sill, • r Plot .JI_B1 a—T Pam fa 4 • 9 STERLING CENTER s �_— a ZI-�I II-�r L MPS Z•� ` "Lo hA(,'1'ORY OIJTLIs'TARic S ' m" ET u BEER & WINE 17422-17438 ; 4'��,-.:�,�J i . at / r'•'t „ (dluu>r.Ja.hwl../'caa7) � � ` - 9p CO mil.- PAIrPt= 1L,Wr11t4&1-rV (-{AJt..lNE7.(r --AM l _ O •'Wwf ID• E.>�T'RL(D6D P��NWUt'1 G�SINET�R°+►J1�b Gi'i� YVNtT�.a � ro poUT •ouT �UHI►�Urt r^4A> �.Ev•LAr von," rc. W m m 41 • GllSTCM pK+.SRKATt��°+-«NIr.IUM vEDESTrEMIIRG Cd�TEv. • INT44CP_IL.Wt'{I `jD M eC 7 Fb•A46fl O-T Vr MOI P05e_Z -LAC-TS. _W !�! W 1t1I�1(111I �ToRC 1'^to�IJTsGr t"'R�w�T6t.� Lill .1{1 1 75. r- -- ---------- - - --� r-----� ----------� 1 - --------- ------ I 1 111 � ie-G - Ilk p�JIL_►��I---IG �L_a�.i.�.T{o•f-J �-� La t �o � 1=o 0 d 1 75Z(A—W-) or p GL�Ta-I�1�c[ Wu 90//GItW 7KCIICAr"a .....w�:.'r' ��GI-) eJ.r.�.s•T►o►-) •�-e Lr=: D.�4I 11-�' of L � ��.ti OLtiwrr.rN•1N r�N V \ •�� :.�.:��:�:.:�;..."...::o� �I—fTeacZlo►� �L_a—tJN.�/--1P'T�O WaL1— ��1-1 n �"� ylP!'.1111oa M.�QK 10•.•.I.,,bPls•�.-�.�+eT10004t7 .st-lJ•�IPh�M �-�.�IIJQ-T• / 7 wITN oe.r+vlGm.. .�CC�ae 'r10 L4�.,ws�p.►-�.=Ta�r.�0 CL $2 TX aIGH �aJv�sE21o1¢a R�T�FJTrO o��lr.lo r1 -/�1-L-• `�►Jr< 79X +r�mv�Ctbl--s7 I�H.su_aa.�,1..1taT•� i.+�la`� sip A' , cC�T�s=a.o .+o.alLar�T.•-�t..�1-i0 vscc Tlc..vu-y u..e� 7f.-�....1T a Y' - ��1 � i�oR 13s��uoHTI►-�G. oFi IWJn'�1►..►sT�seJ ol...l - Ms ,OwJp GOI..OF30 1 . 4QQ•- -II.J�T I.►IIJT aa�olob � IvoRla Fblcam hJ=1 • �A.6..UAnIwJUM AnGlipQva/1..lO o.0`AR2-/�Qo-mow.*'J'!6p M I..L••A�-Jo wf-fIT! L1�TTY►liii pyJP Lo00 •�•�« ^��6-T L�„L,�L�M.1T /K�� -�'�/��d Ap.l�( - • uU•t r..i col..oi1�.ocas aU�•.JGAc-T' 'ro�-.�ar+v«Yh�.afT=+O-...�� ti ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Applicant's Request) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-- SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 93-11. 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is not provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. 2. The proposed pole signs do not adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are not excessive in sign height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 3. The proposed signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because the signs are not excessive in height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11: 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan and sign elevation dated August 19, 1993. 2. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. 3. Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner's representative. 4. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord's approval. 5. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 6. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. hOp194 7V1 412� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11(CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7.1994 CITY.COUNCIL MEETING): �� licant: J. Scott Fawcett/Apellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs by September 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assi�: Herb Fauland ❑2. ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.94-15: -Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appellant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assi ed: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)fl 2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 � 1 (CCLGOI-1) CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST CT: 1 ef .1J' GG/��f Sz�sj & ^� •rsf 3— 7-1!S� EPARTMENT: _ i?JGL/r� D eel/; -- - - - EETING: 3--- & -- 9S- a ...... 1��e o rlY N 3�1(BER OF OTHER I' IBLIC HEART ITGS tPER tral} ni AI3 l (3ATIUAI « . � t .... . Assrstan �t Atirnuus#rator. N/A YES NO Does Heading and Closing of Notice Reflect City Council Hearing (Not PC) Is a Map attached and/or is a quarter page legal ad required? �a If appeal, is appellant's name shown on legal notice? — �'+ �� >e Cdur�>ti!e%c.�ira� S�Jvu If housing is involved, is "legal challenge paragraph" included? If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commission Office on the labels? If Coastal Development Permit, has the Master Legal Notice Document been used? (✓� Is Tito a -verification letter attached? ( ) (-I" (. ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used?. (Please attach verification of Title Co. or indicate that rolls used were derived from Assessor's Rolls in Planning Dept.,ii-hichever applicable) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels? (✓� ( ) Is day of public hearing.correct - Monday/Tuesday? Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set? (✓f ( ) Is day of.public hearing correct -Monday/Tuesday? ( ) ( ) (✓� Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Are the p nt/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels? For Public Hearings at the City Council level, please insert the following paragraph and City Clerk closing at the end of the public hearing notice "ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions,please call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5271. CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET-2ND FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536-5227 6/17/94 GJCS/PL BHER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11(CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7. 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING): Applicant: J. Scott Fawcett/Appellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs by September 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland ❑2. ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.94-15: -Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appellant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assigned: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# I is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 ;{n (CCLGOI-1) L �i� 165 234 08 . 1 165 23413 2 165 234 18 3 VISTA BEACH&SLATER CENT- Sidney Wasserman VISTA BEACH&SLATER CENT PO Box 35910 31 Northampton Ct 2030 E Orangethorpe Ave Louisville KY 40232 Newport Beach CA 92660 Fullerton CA 92631 167 312 01 4 167 312 02 5 167 312 03 6 CHURCHILL WILLIAM H Robert C Autrey STERLING CENTER PO Box 2663 PO Box 90639 217 S Violet Ln Harrisburg PA 17105 Long Beach CA 90809 Orange CA 92669 167 312 04 7 167 312 05 8 167 312 06 9 Wilbur W Lorbeer MOBIL OIL CORP Arthur Jan Ho 5320 E 2nd St PO Box 290 3331 Bounty Cir Long Beach CA 90803 Dallas TX 75221 Huntington Beach CA 92649 167 312 07 10 167 312 08 11 167 313 01 12 HUNTINGTON BEACH FOUNT HUNTINGTON BEACH&FOU Joseph A Schottmiller 8101 Slater Ave 8101 Slater Ave 8081 Windy Sea Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 02 13 167 313 03 14 167 313 04 15 Kevin Rohrig Michael A McMahon David W Morrow 8071 Windy Sea Cir 8061 Windy Sea Cir 18636 Paseo Pizarro Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Irvine CA 92715 167 313 05 16 167 313 06 17 167 313 07 18 Ming-Liang Shiao Jerzy Wladyslaw Dambski Clint&Susan J Berger 817 S Shanada Ct 8072 Windy Sea Cir 8082 Windy Sea Cir Anaheim CA 92807 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 08 19 167 313 09 20 167 313 10 21 Scott E Boxley Gordon P Curtiss Frank&Lisa Vandoren 18588 Cottonwood St 8071 Windy Sands Cir 8061 Windy Sands Cir Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 11 22 167 313 12 23 167 313 13 24 Bruce G Bates Wilbur D Templeton Michael G McTiernan 8052 Windy Sands Cir 8022 Highway 6 8072 Windy Sands Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Hitchcock TX 77563 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 14 25 167 313 15 26 167 313 16 27 Jerry&Coraljean M Zeno Stewart G Shimoda Ren Lee 8082 Windy Sands Cir 25012 Crystal Cir 8102 Windy Sands Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 El Toro CA 92630 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 17 28 167 313 18 29 167 313 19 30 Mark Soderberg Manuel Siprut Inez M Kiteley 15058 Heather Ln PO Box 23004 20079 Glen Arbor Ct Lake Elsinore CA 92530 Des Moines IA 50325 Saratoga CA 95070 167 313 20.. 31 167 313 21 32 167 313 22 33 Sidney Katz Byung K&Sung H Lee Susan C Long 8092 Windy Sea Cir 8102 Windy Sea Cir 8111 Windy Sea Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 313 23 34 167 313 24 35 167 313 25 36 Andrew Roy Abrecht Gloria Marlanan BEACH VILLAS ASSN 8101 Windy Sea Cir 8091 Windy Sea Cir 8071 Windy Sea Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 167 471 21 37 167 472 01 38 J'5,.,r4 Fawcc-tk Kay Honda Carlos A Benevenia `�a MarwlA De vc.lo F,n�„.t Ga 17452 Zeider Ln 17502 Beach Blvd 3g3� s I rc.h Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Npo✓f Bea Gt� 9Z66U Ah ma d MO ✓` Max Market - -- - ------------ - /7 V38 Oea cA 13l vd. ion 6earli, C4 9zG Y7 Tenant Tenant Tenant 17422 Beach Blvd 17428 Beach Blvd 17430 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Tenant Tenant Tenant 17432 Beach Blvd 17434 Beach Blvd 174341/2 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Tenant 17438 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92647 SUSAN K CASE OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7 Laguna Beach, California 92651 714/494-6105 FAX: 714/494-7418 Certification of Property Ownership List THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17424 Baech B1vd,Huntington Beach CA 92647 THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE LATEST Orange County Assessment Rolls, February 3 19RS SUSAN W. CAS V v . Q i i lVS0 d0 A1Nno:) NI NamIS L 9-ZN/ !VMl 30W 991NDOO SHJUAVW l3WVU .701-xv WJY 1N 9,80553SSV p kJOIU !,UOSS3S5w-310N Wr/-bl/ 7VN YA �� •y r Y� 1S'Dy ON fSIL nN+' • Y' 1 ---"r Q �.7�-N y. 'I �� tn I r,3`, s rdw 6I 1 Go C) Lb 10, 4 L 1 y N cCA CL now 6 3A/NO ONd770H r L ^- . Wta. LZ + ;f!//7!'SSl 9e 03S'L//3N 'P//39 l/ O 1s7-313 PAGE 2 OF 2 , 31 . Y HOLLAND DRIVE Y .. , ..�. TRACT .,,, .+• 1 •' _ 1 tir I r 1 i. ;O WINDY SEA (Pq/PAIE STAVEF51 C/RCLC3 {` --------- ---- i�'` c fi 2 'r J n O4K/ y f ;O e O • '2' t �~ O�. , •21 r/''/ -IF/AC.(W M W' pp auI Si � C�N'n V Y / a0' i \ ••se' 'aaC' 1 �.-1 \ -L 1 1 11 %' WINDY Y SANDS/HEvA7F snewrvC/Rae.7- • ----------------------------------- ---� M � Ii•n P""""� r, 2 Il • IA No. 7sso ,�- ,• • •u aa.'-� nn 31 MARCH 1974 TRACT NO. 7950 M.A/. 336-I/,12 NO;E•ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 ASSESSOP'S A1rP PARCc1 NUMBERS EOcx 167 PAcr 313 SHOWN IN ORCIES COUNTY OF OP,A/14( • I PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL PROOF OF PUBLICATION HIJNF THE TNGTO CITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, STATE OF CALIFORNIA) Mann 6, 1995. a1 m- in the City Councill Cham- bers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public S S' hearing on the following County of Orange ) 1. APPEAL OF SPECIAL N PERMIT NO. 93-11 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY I am a Citizen of the United States and a Applicant: J. Scott Appllcant: J. Scott Fawc- :e1t/ Appellant: Former resident of the County aforesaid; I am Councilman Jim Silva - To Street, and is available for retain two (2), 15 feet high public inspection and com- over the age of eighteen years, and not a nonconforming freestand- ment by contacting the Ingparty to or interested in the below co plea signs in lieu d Community Developmentle- compliance with Limited Department, or by tele- Sign Permit No.91.9 which phoning(714)536-5271. entitled matter. I am aprincipal clerk Of required the removal of the ON FILE: A copy of the two(2)signs by September proposed request s on file 17, 1993. Location: 17422- in the City Clerk's Office,the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a 17438 Beach Boulevard 2000 Main Street, Hunting- newspaper of general circulation, printed Sterling Center, Planner ton Beach, California ssigned:Herb Fauland g p 2. ZONE CHANGE NO. 92648. for Inspection by and published in the City of Huntington 94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE the public. A copy of the PLANNING COMMIS- staff report will be available Beach County of Orange State of TSION'SENTATIVE APPROVAL O. City Interested parties at the , TENTATIVE TRACT NO. City Clerk's Office after 15033/CONDITIONAL USE March 2,1995. California, and that attached Notice is a PERMIT NO. 94.29/NEGA- ALL INTERESTED PER- true and complete, copy as was printed 9TIVE 4-1 DECLARATION NO. SONS are Invited to attend 4.15: - Applicant: Grey- said hearing and express stone Homes/Appellant: opinions or submit evi- and published in the Huntington Beach Councilman Ralph Bauer - dence for or against the To rezone a n a p- application as outlined and Fountain Valley issues of said Proximately eight (8) acre above.If you challenge the site from CG (General City Council's action in s of: Commercial) and RMH court, you may be limited newspaper to wit the issue ( ) (Medium-High Density Res• to raising only those Issues Idential) to RM (Medium you. or someone else Density Residential).To ap- raised at the public hearing peal the Planning Commis- described In this notice, or slon's appproval of Tentative in written_correspondence Tract No. 15033/Conve delivered to the City at, or tional Use Permit No.94-29 prior to,the public hearing. February 23 , 1995 and Negative Declaration If there are any further No.94-15,for a 70 lot sub- questions please call the division for a planned unit Planning Division at 536- development consisting of 5271 and refer to above 69 detached residential Items. Direct your written units and one (1) recre- communications to the City ational lot. Conditional Use Clerk. .• Permit No. 94-29 also In- Connie Brockway, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that eludes the request h a tinsCity oin B City ofHun• velop a site which has a tington Beach, 2000 greater than three (3) foot Main Street,2nd Floor, the foregoing is true and correct. grade differentiation be, Huntington Beach, CA tween the high point and 9264t3(714)536.5227 the low point before rough published Huntington grading, to allow a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to Beach- Fountain Valley In- exceed the 42 Inch high dependent February 23, Executed on February 23 199 5 code requirement along 1995 Florida Street, and to per- 024-911 at Costa Mesa California. a retaining wall which , e exxceeds two (2) feet in height. - Location: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Plan- ner Assigned:Kalil Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) #1 Is categorically exempt from ' the provisions of the Call- fo Ity Ac Environmental Oual- Ity Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY Signaturel GIVEN covered In Draft(sNegative Declaration No. 94.15 which was prepared In ac- cordance with the Call- fornia Environmental Qual- ity Act and was approved byy the Planning Commis- sion on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 Is on file at the ;City of Huntington Beach ;Community Development. Department, 2000 Main -m 1 . • RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: S r `1-2, COUNCIL MEETING DATE: RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits ' Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved as to form by City Attorne Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Bonds (If applicable) Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial .. EXPLANATION FO;R MIS$1NG ATTACHMENTS . .... . ... REVIEWED RETURNED .FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk .. OEXPLANATION FRRETUNOF ITEM (Below Space For City Clerk's Use • UZ ` l Connie Brockway,City Clerk >:.,a....� �N�T O� v� City of Huntington Beach �� dF. G � U. Pestat Office of the City Clerk PRE S U R 1 �� Zjr i P.O. Box 190 FEB 23 95 Huntington Beach, CA92648 FIRST CLASS �,tfA11, _ • C I�1'MEfEHJ 167 313 09 20 ' Gordon P Curtiss FA Y Sands Ci � 8071 Wind r 1-�p 9� SFj�r CFO Huntington Beach CA�264 � • • . ��pNTINGTpy O E ``O =NCORPOR4rF .•," .. ' ~1 —._____�O �� It ! I� \' �� {pays} cpUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ,II111�1 i Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach TON7 P R E S T dFS.POST, Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 cP �, CLASS = i•t'B23'95 � / E�.4 I�+� Huntington Beach,CA92648 FIRSTQ� �I ME ER 970052A 16731321 32 f,, ✓`� // BYg K&Sun Lee 9H . v 8102 W 9 b r'•;;'� Windy Sea Cir :R TINGT ,. N Oyu o 7" Huntington Beach CA 92647�9 Ae cpUNTY cP� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 T .........., Tenant �tJTINGTp 17422 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92647 0_\NToRPggq rFo` F I go cpUNTY CPS I'Ye, LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING n,l,►„I,i;fi,,,l tip: 1,l�l,l,l„<<,II„11,,,1,1,PI,lI1,�,1 W. � �. Connie Brockway,City Clerk _ City of Huntington Beach \NGTON ^� U.S.PCSiAli[*R?4:s Office of the City Clerk P R E SS U R w Zx• P.O. Box 190 FED 23 95r-�.y ; t t f� �q ti IA Ip *ri I rr `� \"� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FIRST CLASS • �_-- / RMOEIS 167 313 09 20 Gordon P Curtiss F .. d 8071 Win rG? y Sands Cir �%XHTINGTpy Huntington Beach C&92649"' 17.ISO ppUNTY �P� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING . ,. .- .v.vo..�..nn+.....+.rn..�ay..m...,�..,.;.,`�..,.:-s.T a: '::C:-. .�tJi». S-•- ..Zv-:..w a, Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach \NGTOq Office of the City Clerk PRESORT i� der _ U.S.PosrAG[k � P.O. Box 190 r rcB 23 '95 • Huntington Beach,CA 92M FIRST CLASS MAIL 16731321 32 /✓�' J BYung K&Sung H Lee V ,* 8102 Windy Sea Cir INGTpy ��1�'?�' Huntm ton <�Qr �O�C `N(ORPOq�rr d g Beach CA 92647 r viol fi •� � C• CpUNTY �p� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: Y— APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING): Applicant: J. Scott Fawcett/Appellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs by September 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland ❑2. ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 150331 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-15: -Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appgllant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assigned: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# l,is categoridally,exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach . . - 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 (CCLGOI-1) Connie Brockway,City Clerk US POSTAG��:�:�) ::- City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk V; P.O. Box 190 MAR I A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 6"o 167 313 09 44" , Gordon P. Curtiss ��NTINGTpy 8071 Windy Sands Circle 7A O ,CORPORA, Huntington Beach, CA 9264/ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • Ro- REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES RLS No. S 0 L Gail Hutton, City Attorney Assn To Date Da it Request _made by Telephone D,e�partment .? �� i �rDc�2�uGl _5'�4 �� - Cler.� INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Opinion [ ] Stop Notice [ ] Resolution [ ] Lease [ ] Bond Meeting [ ] Contract/Agreement ] Deed 6ne- Court Appearance [ ] Insurance Other LA n id Ed 4 01 tc W117, Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attache a? [ ] Yes [ ] No Are exhibits attached? Yes No If for Council a tion, If not for Council action, .-Signature of Department Head Agenda deadline A �- 3/43+ desired completion date Council Meeting " 3/6 �- COMMENTS: Routing: PDA JCB J AJF , SL ADL . f TM WBS RCS WSA 95-080 This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to attorney ART D E L A L O Z A . 2/16/9 5 telephone extension 5620 . His/her secretary is Joan N. , extension 5 5 An Keep the goldenrod copy for your files. Please reference the above RLS number for inquiries. Notes Filename Date completed: WP No. RCS 2/28/92 Rev. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES RLS No. i Gail Hutton, City Attorney Assn To j Date 171 Request made by Telephone D a tment ! .�19s� raw INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Opinion [ ] Stop Notice [ ] Resolution [ ] Lease [ ] Bond 74• Meeting [ ] Contract/Agreement ] Deed pie r LL ' [ ] Court Appearance [ ] Insurance Other lG Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attache a? [ ] Yes [ ] No Are exhibits attached? I Yes I No If for Council aigtion, If not for Council action, Signature of Department Head Agenda deadline A d- 3ha. desired completion date Council Meeting 30f j `# COMMENTS: Routing: PDA 44 jJCB 1 AJF i SL � N 1 ADL TM WBS i i RCS . i WSA This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to attorney telephone extension His/her secretary is , extension Keep the goldenrod copy for your files. Please reference the above RLS number for inquiries. Notes Filename Date completed: WP No. I RCS 2/28/92 Rev. •CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES RLS No. Gail Hutton, City Attorney Assn To Date -J C Date r(f�( Request made by,, Telepho/ne Depa/rtment y INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Opinion [ ] Stop Notice [ ] Resolution [ ] Lease [ ] Bond Meeting [ ] Contract/Agreement [ ] Deed [ ] Court Appearance [ ] Insurance 1 Other 11. 6f,01 Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? [ ] Yes [ ] No Are exhibits attached? Yes No If for Council action, If not for Council action, Signature of Department Head Agenda deadline `ja �/a 2- desired completion date Council Meeting' COMMENTS: Routing: CiQI n _,-� t PDA JCB A JF S L ADL TM WBS RCS WSA This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to attorney , telephone extension His/her secretary is , extension Keep the goldenrod copy for your files. Please reference the above RLS number for inquiries. Notes Filename Date completed: WP. No. RCS 2/28/92 Rev. Hie EsCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT: Public Hearings that were Continued for One-Year Time From 3/7/94 and 4/4/94 to 3/7/95 and 4/3/95 DATE: February 1, 1995 On 3/7/U the City Council continued a public hearing to 3/7/22 which is a Tuesday. I am not certain why this long time period was selected. The continuance of public hearing was posted on the Official Board until January 1; however, when the new posting board was built the continued notice was not.reposted on the new board causing a short lapse in posting. Also, the continued date should have been March 6, 1995 not March 7, 1995, The Community Development Department is now bringing back this sign permit appeal and another similar one that was continued from 4/4/94 to 4/3/95. It is Community Development Department's plan to bring these hearings back in March with republication and reposting as continued public hearings. I believe the continued notice posting was in substantial compliance. Please let me know if you agree so the item can be rescheduled for the agenda. g:cftbmemwutton3 i v AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I,Connie Brockway,declare as follows: That I am the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach;that at a regular meeting.;of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held Monday,March 7,1994,said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE attached hereto; and that on Tuesday,March 8,1994,at the hour of 9:00 a.m.,a copy of said notice was posted at a conspicuous place near the door at which the meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Tuesday,March 8,1994,at Huntington Beach,California. Connie Brockway,City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Post pursuant to Government Code Section 54950 derMphcont 4 . ,'Page-6-CounciVAgency A 3/7/94 (6) 0-3. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL BY COUNCILMEMBER JIM SILVA OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93- 11.-17422-17438 BEACH BUD (420.351 Staff report prepared by Community Development. Public hearing to consider the following appeal: APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Councilmember Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approximately 200 feet north of Slater Ave.) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL ZONE: Not applicable RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sustain the Planning Commission's denial by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2 of the RCA dated 3/7/94. OUe/'/'vle, /- C x a oom-G 40, !O(�LtON'll4TrG GP4MCo rI j J ti0 hepeoverD G- a (6) 4 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I,Connie Brockway,declare as follows: That I am the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach;that at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held Monday,April 4,1994,said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE attached hereto;and that on Tuesday,April 5,1994,at the hour of 9:00 a.m.,a copy of said notice was posted at a conspicuous place near the door at which the meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Tuesday,April 5,1994,at Huntington Beach,California. Connie Brockway,City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Post pursuant to Government Code Section 54950 derMpheont v D-3. (M Council) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL BY COUNCILMEMBER ROBITAILLE OF R_!-;.l.NNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OI ?QECIAL PERMIT NO 93-13 =SUPERIOR ELECTRICAL ADVERTISE 'v' INC -45 FOOT HIGH PYLON SIGN -9891 ADAMS AVE (NW Cog BROOKHURST) _(420.35) Staff report prepared by Community Development Public hearing to consider the following appeal: APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign permit No. 93-13. APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. APPELLANT: Mayor Pro Tempore Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 9891 Adams Avenue (northwest corner at Brookhurst) ZONE: C2-FP2 (Community Business District-Flood plain) REVISED REQUEST: To permit an existing, non-conforming 45 foot high, 624 square foot double pole pylon sign to remain in its present location and to allow a 140 square foot sign face change identifying Cudini And Lucas Jewelers, in lieu of a maximum 15 foot high, 70 square foot freestanding sign pursuant to Section 9610.7 of The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15315, Class 15 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sustain the Planning Commission's action and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-13 with findings as set forth in Attachment 5 of the RCA dated 4/4/94. Page 11 -Council/Agency Minutes-03/07/94 (City Council)_PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL BY COUNCILMEMBER JIM SILVA OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 93-11 -17422-17438 BEACH BOULEVARD - APPROVED (420.35) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following appeal: APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Councilmember Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard- East side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial to retain two fifteen feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL ZONE: Not applicable Legal Notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. No communication or written protests were received on the matter. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Scott Fawcett, property owner, spoke regarding the removal of the signs, the negative effect it will have on the shopping center, businesses failing, numerous open spaces in shopping centers, businesses moving out of state and requested help from the Council for small businesses. There being no one further present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Discussion was held by Council and staff regarding renewal of limited sign permit, issuance of special sign permit and continuance of issue until the Sign Committee has completed it's"study of the sign code. Motion to Overrule Planning Commission Denial and Approve Special Sign Permit No 93-11 -Failed A motion was made by Silva, seconded by Sullivan, to overrule the Planning Commission's denial and approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 4 of the Request for Council Action alternative findings for approval dated March 7, 1994. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Sullivan NOES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig ABSENT: Robitaille 0. 75 Page 12-Council/Agency Minutes-03/07/94 Motion to Continue Decision Until Sign Committee Reviews and Makes Changes to the Sigh Ordinance A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to continue Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 until the Sign Committee comes up with their recommendations which would have the effect of leaving the signs as they are, with a caveat(by Leipzig)to pick a date certain, March 7, 1995. AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING -ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT-APPROVED (600.10) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Annual Review of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement Compliance Report Development Agreement No. 90-1 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: The Holly-Seacliff Master Plan Area ZONE: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan REQUEST: Annual Review of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Development Agreement No. 90-1 is covered by Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 which was certified by City Council on January 8, 1990. No additional environmental review is required for this report. COASTAL STATUS: A portion of Development Agreement No. 90-1 is located within the.City's Certified Coastal Zone. No action is necessary. Legal Notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been published and posted. No further communication or written protests were received on the matter. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Tom Zanic, Seacliff Partners, stated that he had a twenty minute presentation prepared but would forgo the presentation due to the late hour and answer Council questions. There being no one further present to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Recommendations for Preparation of Subsequent Compliance Reports Councilmember Leipzig made recommendations to staff for the preparation of subsequent compliance reports to include statement of issues. 0 ( V- Page 13 -Council/Agency Minutes -03/07/94 A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Sullivan, to receive and file the Holly-Seacliff Agreement Annual Compliance Report for 1993. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille CC& Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION -TRACT NO. 14035-CENTRAL PARK NO. 15-EAST OF EDWARDS STREET-SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE-CONTINUED TO MARCH 21, 1994 (420.60) The Mayor announced that staff requested the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 14035 be continued to March 21, 1994. CONSENT CALENDAR-(ITEMS REMOVED) The following items were requested by Councilmembers to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration: (Sullivan) Resolution No. 6574 regarding the proposed initiative entitled Mobile Home Fairness and Rental Assistance Act, (Silva)settlement appropriation, (Leipzig) modification to City Classification Plan, Art Center classifications. CONSENT CALENDAR- ITEMS APPROVED) On motion by Sullivan, second by Leipzig, Council approved the following items, as recommended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson,Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) MINUTES-ADOPTED-Approved and adopted minutes of Council/Agency regular minutes of December 6, 1993 and December 20, 1994 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. (City Council) HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RESIGNATION -MARYANN MALAMUT-APPROVED (110.10) -Accepted the resignation of Mary Ann Malamut from the Historic Resources Board whose term will expire on June 30, 1997. (City Council)WEED ABATEMENT-RESOLUTION NO 6572-FIXES APRIL 18. 1994 AS PUBLIC HEARING DATE-ADOPTED (520.80) -"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN WEEDS GROWING IN THE CITY, AND RUBBISH AND REFUSE DEPOSITED ON PUBLIC WAYS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE; AND FIXING THE TIME FOR HEARING PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO THE ABATEMENT THEREOF." 0.( Page 14-Council/Agency Minutes-03/07/94 (CityCity Council) FLORIDA-YORKTOWN STREET IMPROVEMENTS-CHANGE ORDERS-NASHAT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION -CC-873 -APPROVED (600.50)-Authorized an increase of$41,500 to the approved project budget for the Florida-Yorktown Street Improvement Project as follows: Utica Ave, west of Beach (725-733 Utica Avenue), $7,000; Slater Avenue at Keelson Street, $13,840; south side of Yorktown Avenue(602 Yorktown Ave)$2,600 and underestimated grading, pavement removal & reconstruction and water service construction $18,060. (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION -SOUTH SHORES ENHANCEMENT AREA -J &B KOVAC ENGINEERING -MSC-361 -PERCH CIRCLE-APPROVED (600.80) -Accepted the reconstruction and improvements of Perch Circle in the South Shores Enhancement Area at a final contract cost of$29,396 and authorized the City Clerk to file-the Notice of Completion. (C� Council)AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT-FUNDAMENT&ASSOCIATES - MUNICIPAL ARTS CENTER-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES-APPROVED (600.10) - Approved and authorized execution of Amendment No. 1 to the agreement between the city and Fundament &Associates for Construction Manager Services for the Municipal Arts Center, approved the increase in the Contract Change Order Limit from$149,550 to$159,720 and authorized and approved transfer of$35,000 from the Art Center Fund account no. E-AC-CS-386-593 to Art Center Fund account no. E-CP-AS-151-6-31- 00. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency,)APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE& REDEVELOPMENT SECOND TRUST DEED PROGRAM -APPROVED (340.70)-Approved and authorized execution of all loan documents necessary to secure the city and Agency's investment in homes purchased by participants in the Down Payment Assistance Program. (City Council) RESOLUTION NO.6573 -COUNTY LANDFILL GATE FEE LIEN SYSTEM -ADOPTED (810.20) -"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING A LIEN TO BE PLACED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AGAINST PAYMENTS DUE TO RAINBOW DISPOSAL BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH." Grants the county Integrated Waste Management Department(IWMD)the right to lien funds due Rainbow Disposal for residential refuse collection should the hauler fail to pay gate fees on refuse collected in the city. (City Council) MODIFICATION TO CITY CLASSIFICATION PLAN -ART CENTER CLASSIFICATIONS - RESOLUTION NO.6554-CONTINUED TO MARCH 21. 1994 (700.10) The City Clerk presented Resolution No.6554 for Council adoption - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO AMEND THE CITY CLASSIFICATION PLAN." (Adds new classifications: Art Education Coordinator, Exhibition Coordinator, Preparator, Cultural Services Aide.) Councilmember Leipzig requested that the modification to the City Classification Plan be continued to March 21, 1994. 0 (: 8 J• -J M • • Page 15-Council/Agency Minutes -03/07/94 (City/Council) RESOLUTION NO.6574-OPPOSITION TO STATEWIDE INITIATIVE-"MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE, MOBILE HOME RENT CONTROL RESTRICTIONS, INITIATIVE STATUTE., - ADOPTED (430.60) The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6574 for Council adoption -"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE STATEWIDE INITIATIVE ON MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE. MOBILE HOME RENT CONTROL RESTRICTIONS. INITIATIVE STATUTE." Councilmember Sullivan requested that the name of the initiative in the resolution be change to reflect the correct title. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to adopt Resolution No.6574. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSENT: Robitaille (City Council)SETTLEMENT APPROPRIATION -NANCY SMITH V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON_ BEACH (630.40) The City Council presented a communication from the City Attorney regarding Nancy Smith v. the city. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to approve appropriation of$500,000 for settlement in the case of Nancy Smith v. City of Huntington Beach from Account No. 1 C 301 self-insurance liability unreserved fund balance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSENT: Robitaille (Redevelopment Agency)CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 22, 1994-EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND(ERAF) PAYMENT-HUNTINGTON CENTER& LOW& MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURES-CONTINUED TO MARCH 21, 199 (400.10) (City Council) BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK-SHELL OIL COMPANY-GAS PLANT-ORANGE COUNTY BOLSA CHICA REGIONAL PARK EDUCATIONAL-HISTORICAL ELEMENT (920.30) The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator regarding the establishment of a city position as to whether a portion of Shell Oil Company gas plant, currently located on Bolsa Chica Bluffs, should be included as an educational and historical element in the Orange County Bolsa Chica Regional Park and whether to extend the deadline for clean up and dedication requirements for the 3.6 acre site. A communication dated March 2, 1994 received from Shell Western E & P Incorporated in support of the proposed extension was distributed to Council. The City Administrator presented a staff report 079 Page 16-Council/Agency Minutes-03/07/94 Motion to Draft Amendment to Holly Seacliff Development Agreement-Approved (600.10) A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Leipzig, to direct staff to meet with Seacliff Partners to draft a mutually agreeable amendment to Section 2.2.1(a)6 of Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 to modify the clean up and dedication requirements for the 3.6 acre Shell Gas Company gas plant site for Council approval. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson,Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille Action on Educational and Historical Element of the Gas Plan Deferred to Council Committee for Rev Following discussion a motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Moulton-Patterson, to continue action on a recommendation to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department that a portion of the gas plant be included as an educational and historical element in the Bolsa Chica Regional Park as described in the Request for Council Action dated March 7, 1994 entitled Bolsa Chica Regional Park-Gas Plant Element until such time as a Council Committee can convene and discuss all aspects of the Linear Park. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille Council Committee Formed to Review Linear Park Councilmembers Bauer and Leipzig volunteered to serve on a Council Committee to review all aspects of the Linear Park. (City Council) SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION STUDY-CONTINUED TO MARCH 21, 1994 (800.60) (City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3228 -ADOPTED -AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3228 for Council adoption-"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 12.32 TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING." A motion was made by Silva, seconded by Winchell, to adopt Ordinance No. 3228. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille (City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3231 -ADOPTED -SUN DECKS AND WINDSCREENS (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3231 for Council adoption -"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 17.24 THEREOF REGARDING SUN DECKS AND WINDSCREENS." 080 Page 17-Council/Agency Minutes-03/07/94 A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Sullivan, to adopt Ordinance No. 3231. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille (City Council)ORDINANCE NO. 3230-INTRODUCTION APPROVED -PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3230 for Council adoption -"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS." (Eighteen street segments to increase from 40 to 45 mph; two street segments to increase from 40 to 50 mph; one street segment to increase from 45 to 50 mph; one street segment to be reduced from 55 to 50 mph; eleven street segments to reduce from 50 to 45 mph; and three street segments to reduce from 40 to 30 mph.) (Introduction approved February 28, 1994. Submitted for re-introduction.) A memorandum dated March 3, 1994 from the Public Works Director entitled Errors in Speed Limit Ordinance was distributed to Council. A motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Sullivan, to adopt Ordinance No. 3230. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell;Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSENT: Robitaille Planning Commission Resignation of Debbie Cook and Emergency Appointment of Edward Kerins (110.20) Councilmember Bauer announced the resignation of Planning Commissioner Debbie Cook with regrets effective March 7, 1994 and appointed Edward Kerins as an emergency interim replacement pending compliance with Maddy Act posting requirement. ADJOURNMENT-COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, March 21, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTES o I City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman 081 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 7, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development` Subject: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachment STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for City Council consideration is an appeal by Council Member Jim Silva (See Attachment No. 1) of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which was denied by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1993. Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request by J. Scott Fawcett, property owner, to retain two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. The current code would allow one seven feet high multi- tenant monument sign. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Sustain the Planning Commission's action by denying the appeal and deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 2." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECEMBER 7, 1993: THE MOTION MADE BY COOK, SECOND BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 WITH FINDINGS, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE: AYES: COOK, GORMAN, BIDDLE, RICHARDSON, DETTLOFF,NEWMAN, INGLEE NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION PASSED i ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center located at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (Sterling Center). The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit and approved the planned sign program. The planned sign program stipulated that the two 15 feet high non-conforming freestanding pole signs that identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two years through Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired on September 17, 1993, and requires the removal of the two pole signs. The two signs are to be replaced by one code conforming seven feet high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. The monument sign will include the name of the center, provide signage for the two businesses, and provide identification for two additional tenants. Special Sign Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft. of sign area) and Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft. of sign area). Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building. Lamp's Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is also partially screened by the existing building. On the basis of the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building , the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. Staff believes that two freestanding signs along the 80 feet of street frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot that adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent lot is the location of the building (Rodeo Mexican Restaurant) that obstructs the retail center requesting retention of their signs. Therefore, there are three freestanding signs pole signs along a 160 foot frontage of Beach Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is excessive and cluttered and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an improvement of signage. The new monument sign will continue to provide the two tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. RCA-3/7/94 2 • • In addition, the existing two freestanding signs are incompatible with the center to the north along Beach Boulevard (Holland Center). This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Approving Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 would be inconsistent with the Holland Center sign. Staff believes that the monument sign permitted by code for Sterling Center will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request based upon the two pole signs being incompatible with approved signs in the area. Analysis of the Appeal The appeal filed by Council Member Jim Silva is based upon; 1) the city's current economic climate, 2) the fact that the city is currently reviewing the zoning regulations for signs in the city and, 3) the retention of non-conforming signs not the establishment of new non-conforming signs. Staff s analysis of the appeal will focus on the review of the zoning regulations by the Sign Code Committee and the retention of the non-conforming signs,not the economic climate of the city. The Sign Code Committee is composed of City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City staff. The Subcommittee's recommendations for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard is to allow lots with 200-400 feet of frontage to have max. 10 feet high freestanding signs in lieu of 7 feet high signs. No code changes are proposed that would affect the applicant's property. The Planning Commission approved these changes to the sign code in October 1993, and are pending before the City Council. The retention of the two non-conforming signs, not the establishment of non-conforming signs is the next point of the appeal. Through the limited sign permit process, staff believes that the applicant has already enjoyed the privilege of retaining the two non-conforming signs for a maximum period of two years. The premise of this process is to allow non-conforming signs to re- faced and remain during the establishment period of a new business. Therefore, the applicant has been given the opportunity to open for business and not be burdened with the additional economic hardship of an entirely new sign. Staff does not support the appellants point. Staff believes that the center and the businesses have been granted this period and more, and therefore, the signs are no longer necessary to identify a new business or site. In addition, other signs in the area have been brought into conformance with the code and the retention of these signs will be detrimental to newly established code conforming signs in the area. Staff believes that the signs should now be removed as required by'the implementation of the planned sign program. RCA-3/7/94 3 • • Conclusion In reviewing the appeal and the applicant's request, staff believes that the request should be denied based upon the analysis and the findings that; 1) that the strict compliance with the Sign Ordinance will not be an economic hardship, 2) the retention of two non-conforming signs on 80 feet of frontage will adversely affect other signs in the area and, 3) the retention of two non-conforming signs will be detrimental to property in the vicinity. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may approve the appeal and approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No.4. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal letter dated 12/17/93 from Council Member Jim Silva 2. Findings for Denial dated 12/7/93 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12/7/93 4. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Applicant's Request) MTU:MF:HZ:hfjiV RCA- 3/7/94 4 J• Iff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL.COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH C7 S m C= c� x IV TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Jim Silva, City Council Member w DATE: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Appeal to the Planning Commission Denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The request is to retain two existing pole signs located in the Sterling Center at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). The reason for this appeal is as follows: The city is currently reviewing the requirements of zoning regulations for signs in light of the city's current economic climate. Therefore any approval for a modified sign would be based on speculation of the regulations for the new sign code. The request is for the retention of two non conforming signs not the establishment of new non conforming; therefore, this request would not add to the number of non conforming signs. In addition to the above stated reasons, I feel that the City Council should have the desire and responsibility to retain business in Huntington Beach. I further believe that the Council should make the final decision on matters which directly effect the economic conditions of the community. xc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator 00. � i I .A Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 December 10, 1993 J. Scott Fawcett 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 I REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming j freestanding pole signs . I j LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: December 7 , 1993 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years . 2 . The proposed pole signs_ may adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet -of. frontage and because the signs -are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 Page Two I hereby certify that Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 was denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on December 7, 1993 , upon the foregoing findings . Sincerely, Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission by: Scot Hess Senior Planner (7969d-23) • huntington beach department of community development STAff EpOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 7, 1993 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (17422-17438 Beach Boulevard) Special Sign Permit No. 93-11- is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No . 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission denied Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 which was a request to reface one (1) of the two (2) non-conforming pole signs on-site, but approved Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 . The approval of the planned sign program allowed the retention of the two (2) pole signs for a maximum period of two (2) years (Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9) with the stipulation that the signs be removed and replaced with a 'seven (7) foot high monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . Staff does not support the applicant ' s request because the applicant has already enjoyed the privilage of the use of the two (2) pole signs for a period of two (2) years, the signs are excessive in height, and the retention of two (2) poles signs on 80 feet of frontage is in violation of the sign code and is not in keeping with the policy of signs along Beach Boulevard. Staff recommends denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which would allow the two (2) non-conforming signs to be retained with findings for denial . A-PL-FM-23D • 0 BOLSA m pp G0 • ' iJ Mc FADbIN CENTER EDINGER ♦ HEIL WARNER ♦ ♦ SLATER 7 ♦ �(+ TALBERT ♦ ELLIS L G7 •CARFIELD YORKTOWN SITE A 1� ADAMS INDIANAPOLIS Mnu�n � ATLANTA ww� ' HAM rTT'7"1 - T N HAMILTON J BANNING m I / SSP 93- 1- 1 1 R� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 7, 1993 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 APPLICANT/ J. Scott Fawcett PROPERTY 3835 Birch Street OWNER: Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs . LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE ACCEPTED: November 23 , 1993 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial EXISTING USE: Shopping Center ACREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 square feet) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to: "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings . " 2_. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Medical Building/Service Station West of Subject Property (Across Beach Boulevard)_: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign . Permit No-. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life .of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit but approved the planned sign program with the stipulation that the two (2) 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs which identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two (2) years through Limited Sign. Permit No. 91-9 . Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired Staff Report - 12/7/93 -2- (7458d) on September 17, 1993 and requires the removal of the two (2) pole signs . The signs are to be replaced by a single seven (7) foot high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. Planned Sign Program The Master Sign Program for Sterling Center includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No . 3) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Special Sign Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two (2) pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft . of sign area) and for Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft . of sign area) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building . Lamps Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is partially screened by the existing building. Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit . Staff believes that two (2) freestanding signs along the 80 feet of frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot which adds to the sign clutter . This adjacent lot is the location of the building which obstructs the retail center requesting the retention of their signs . Therefore, there are three (3) freestanding pole signs along a 160 foot frontage along Beach Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is cluttered and excessive and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an. improvement of signage and also will continue to provide the two (2) tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. An example of improved signage along Beach Boulevard is the Holland Center (Centerfield Sports Bar) . This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center -. has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Staff believes that the monument sign will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as the small shopping center. Design Review Board On October 21, 1993, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed sign for colors, materials and design only. The Board did not comment or make any recommendations regarding the special sign permit request . The Board did recommend the colors, materials and Staff Report - 12/7/93 -3- (7458d) design of the signs for the retail center as required and depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . The recommendation was by unanimous vote. Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of the suites being blocked from view by another building . However, staff does not believe the retention of the non-conforming freestanding pole signs and maintaining the life of the signs is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit . 10_. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No . 93-11 with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years . 2 . The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible .with proposed and approved signs in the area . 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant ' s Narrative 2. Site plan and sign elevation dated August 19 , 1993 3 . Monument sign, Planned sign Program No. 91-7 4 . - Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 17, 1991 5 . Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval SH•9 : ss Staff Report - 12/7/93 -4- (7458d) STERLING CENTER 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach,, CA 92660 (714) 756-8677 August 19,. 1993 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Sterling Center 17422-38 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Dear Commissioners: We are requesting a special sign permit for the purpose of maintaining the existing sign program at the subject shopping center. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 allows the two existing pole signs identifying a lamp store and market to remain until September 17, 1993. If we are required to remove the pole signs,. these two businesses will suffer a further loss of sales. This is because an existing Mexican Restaurant, not a part of Sterling Center, blocks the visability of these businesses. Due to the declining economy and resultant reduction of income,. we do not have the money to replace these signs. Banks have refused our request to borrow money to build a new monument sign structure along with new signs. The shopping center is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site. We are hopeful that the Commission will understand the hardship we are faced with and act favorably upon our request. . Sincerely yours, STERLING CENTER J. Scott Fawcett General Partner JSF/ke Enclosures IE0.00 m- sl g8� I P S FACTORY BEER I LA� OUTIX wl;gE 52OO LARGE SHADE DEPT. MARKET ti 1 26' DVY STERLING CENTER ' EASEMENT\ e' STEEL POLE - — - e' DEL POLE S S''TORE m eO.00 _i t r __-.._ -- I& 1742z 'a 't t IW 1 RESTAURANT , F' 1 ly R e- =91,POLE lO• STEEL POLE • . ia.ao I1 q - (� NOT A PART ^ 'LAM4'S' POLE SIGN Igo I "MAX" POLE SIGN 1 POLE SIGN LW 60.00 ASPHALT ASPHALT —---- -- --- BEACH BLVD 1V.rl .S. N.T .S. EXISTING SIGNS AND POLES STERLING CENTER A.P.0 167-312-03 SCAIE: I" = 10' DRAWN FOR: STERLING CENTER 3835 BIRCH S REET S`h L.TZ 1.J N G C L N'.C'E R NEWPORT BEACH. CA. 02660 i SCOTT FAWCETT. 17422--313 13EACII HOULEVARD GENERAL PARTNER (7I4) 756-6077 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 1 !Lil�ii�tt�rc • 9 - 5 ash U s � d � p STERLING CENTER.[I ' r : LAMPSII'� F 3 < • zl 11-9er MARKET BEER & WINE 11 L 7 Ir --- 17422-17438 e�Ftr�11� I�uH�2s ° o t q'r-,-'T-"-T—J-r 4 I M (n1Uc�Ja.vw/llT3i�� B Aa JI Gt—J ELz-----l-l—T Io t--J a t'. P2l %E FA-F— �n1 j pIGR 11,1 lIC(IN'�•�IFA M9,M {Dj'r e-A&O ■O •'F'ti`�� IDa EXTRt.(�ED P•+.ur+INUt-t caall�fEr'S FrwNT�D a'FF WtttT�. L (0 . '. PoiLTL-D.OLf•T A-L-ulit rJurl LAr Wn-" AL[xquG W 75 j IiOP( COL-OR-4. TD YOW AvA % Qw A4-urll(,JtAH PEpESTAt-/TeWTv E GEY�TEti7. • INT g4cp- IL wr-il t 1 mcw -M EL- QCI7 P•(A•Ai6H OUTPLAT'FL OURi E)Sf-!/"hi{n. ,�^ W Y 1 W a1 Vv , • huntington beach department of community development sraf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September 17, 1991 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-9/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 91-7 APPLICANT: Ahmad Mozaffari/Max Market DATE ACCEPTED: 17438 Beach Boulevard September 6, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Sterling Center November 5, 1991 OWNER: 217 S. Violet Lane Orange, CA 92669 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REOUEST: To permit the face change of a non-conforming 15 foot GENERAL PLAN: General freestanding pole sign (Max Commercial Market) and the establish- ment of a sign program for EXISTING USE: Shopping the shopping center . Center LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard ACREAGE: . 55 (23, 965 sf) (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north Slater Avenue) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to: A. "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings; and" B. "Approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign fora maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. " 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 in conjunction with Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 is a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The project also includes the establishment of a master sign program for the shopping center . A-FM-23C Special Sign Permit No. 91-7 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 961, (Signs) in the following area: 1 . Section 9610 . 5(b) specifies that commercial sites with less than 400 feet on one (1) frontage are permitted one (1) freestanding monument sign, maximum seven (7) feet high with 50 square feet of sign area.- The applicant is requesting the face change of an existing 15 foot non-conforming pole sign and to maintain the life of the non-conforming sign. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Shopping Center North and . West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND- USE: Medical Building/Mobil Station 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: ' Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION- COMMITTEE: Not applicable. Staff Report - 9/17/91 -2- (0730d) 9 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On May 21, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-11 which established Max Market, a , convenience store located in the Sterling Shopping Center. As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit the applicant is required to submit a planned sign program for the shopping center. The submittal of the planned sign program for Planning Commission action satisfies the condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-11 and closes the review process for the establishment of the use. Special Sian Permit The applicant is requesting approval of Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market . The applicant has refaced the sign without the benefit of obtaining a building permit and subsequently has been cited by the Land Use Division. The applicant ' s administrative remedy to permit the sign reface prior to obtaining a building permit is to seek approval of the special sign permit request . The applicant states that the reface of the pole sign is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (see Attachment No. 2) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is partially screened from the street by an existing building (Donuttery) and lot located directly in front of Max' s Market (see Attachment No. 3) . Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and screening of the suite by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. M�K I�L.CCPr . �— LAo-py NT's ficwv( a„c.Er i,....• t l � I Sew •;[.. n;r' c.,�. Staff Report - 9/17/91 -3- (0730d) Staff ' s analysis of the applicant ' s request centers on the number of existing non-conforming pole signs on-site and the need for a center identification sign with majo.r tenant identification. Currently, the site has two (2) non-conforming freestanding pole signs along the 80 foot Beach Boulevard frontage. These two (2) pole signs identify the two (2) major tenants of the center, Max Market and Lamps Factory' Outlet. In addition, the parcel directly in front of the L-shaped portion of the site and in front of Max Market also has a non-conforming freestanding pole sign. A total of three (3) freestanding pole signs are located along a 160 foot frontage on Beach Boulevard. Staff believes that the applicant ' s request has some merit due to the lack of street visibility, however, staff also believes that a proper sign program can also relieve some of the clutter of freestanding signs on-site and also clean up the prohibited (roof) signs of the shopping center ' s building . In addition, staff does not recommend the granting of a special sign permit to vest the life of a non-conforming pole sign. This is in keeping with the City' s sign code and policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the aforementioned, staff does not believe that the necessary findings of fact to approve the applicant ' s request can be made. Staff does not support the special sign permit . Planned Sian Program The applicant has submitted a sign program for the Sterling Center . The sign program includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the two (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No. 4) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the submittal of a viable master sign program that meets code requirements, addresses the center ' s need for center identification and major tenant identification, staff recommends that the pole sign be permitted for an interim period of a maximum two (2) years . This recommendation is based upon the fact that no remodel, new construction or new use is proposed -on site at this time. Any of the aforementioned scenarios would, however, require the implementation of the requirements of the planned sign program. . Staff also recommends that the planned sign program be submitted to the Design Review Board after Planning Commission action for final review and approval . Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of his suite being blocked from view by another building . . However, staff does not believe the reface of the non-conforming freestanding pole sign and maintaining the life of the sign is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard . Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit and approval of the Staff Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0730d) planned sign program to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years . At that time the monument sign included in the planned sign program shall be constructed and the two (2) non-conforming pole signs shall be removed. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-9 with findings ; and B_. Approve Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-9 : 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant . 2 . The proposed reface of a 24 square foot, non-conforming freestanding pole sign may adversely affect other signs in the area . The sign is excessive in sign height and is not proportional or compatible with the approved commercial signs in the area . 3 . The proposed sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign because of the signs excessive height and because the sign is not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 91-7: 1 . Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 will provide for signage that reflects a common- theme for the .proposed center incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2 . Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 provides for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the building. 3 . The signs will be compatible with other signs in the surrounding commercial center and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned sign Program No. 91-7 . Staff Report - 9/17/91 -5- (0730d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 91-7 : 1 . The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan, sign elevations and building elevations dated June 12, 1991 . 2 . The written text of Planned Sign Permit No . 91-7 shall be modified to include the following language changes : a . All corner unit signage shall comply with Article 961 . b. Length of sign cabinets shall not exceed 70% of leasehold widht . c. All .signs identified as prohibited pursuant to Article 961 Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be included in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . d. The non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign shall be permitted for a maximum of two (2) years from final approval . At the end of the two (2) year period from final approval the two (2) pole signs shall be removed and replaced by the monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 and in accordance with Article 961, Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. e. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits . f. Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner' s representative. g. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord' s approval. h. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all. proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance -of building permits or certificate of occupancy.. 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit a revised written text pursuant to Condition No . 2 . b. The Design Review Board shall review and approve all signs as proposed in Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 . Staff Report - 9/17/91 -6- (0730d) • • . . c The applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2, 000 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the two (2) on-site non-conforming freestanding pole signs . If the signs , are not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two (2) years from the date of final approval, or remodel of the property, whichever comes first, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said signs are located and remove said signs and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of. Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if may, returned to the person depositing the bond. 4 . Any proposed sign that does- not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 5 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Planned Sign Program No . 91-7 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings and suggested. conditions of approval and approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and modified suggested conditions of approval . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2 . Applicant ' s Narrative 3 . Site plan and sign elevation dated October 2, 1990 4 . Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 dated June 12, 1991 HS.:.qdkj 1 Staff Report - 9/17/91 -7- (0730d) 1` I CF—R .. I _ f 1� RI �.. J i R2 ,row ]^ RI 3 MARSEILE on g BOLDER ca V CID•P wVE. - I R2 I woo2. i RI RI R2� R2 a MI 2 Jr WLENG. pR 1 I CF-E -----' ],o,oLl 1]' ,»,. RI RI (• K VIEW SLHO:L) N./1ORELL 011 • w ` 1,o = FRILS AN0 MI i MI R3 I - - R, �r R3 C 4]0{ �4 R3 J GU1 6E�-- on = ON oR i �� 3 RI CF'E ° R3 NaLPNo 3 cv c� a _�° RI , _ a RI• PD R3 : °C �� RI RI RI Y1 3• � $y u ^n•f• u } ; a ; u R3 a OP d o N W 1 R3 R3 Y R3 R3 •�l m � 1,.•+ �,.a "' AVE —"ISL.TER AVF b! Ir' ]N.r g J R2 i o MI t MH �, 2 R2 Y ! ) M I 1 E�.] M.EIME 0/ TP.CT •NI J \J '0 Il C R I O _ u zros. p $ o P .� a-- +c4 R3 xn RI a I: u T] 8-.:. R I "o .01 - ••- I b ISI—w Q n M I a R2 4j I ;,' N r— .N..w oti e I I :RI. � RI • MI R3 Tr � _ �� R2 I+oTi,[ [:::2 1 u.nmo .... w R3 R2 C4� _ �� '�P., Opp �r OP RI I i ]00 0 • NL,V NIIN AVE- •— .. 1 E R2 . _ 1... MI-CD sMrl . R2m — ]cwLt IP o m , OP m40 �;.... y ILO uM I R 2 1,: •1� ].1,. 1 - r SEE.ES-5-11 ]•O,O a!a R! y �1 •a .,�• - 1 s •Ij R2 SSP 90-09IPSP 91-07 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r r r r• • • t r e r - r f t f r • r • • r • r e • • • a f I' ••f t r• •• I f• September 11, 1991 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Department of Community Development Huntington Beach, CA. Subject: Special Sign Permit Gentlemen: Simply stated, I cannot conduct enough business without having a street sign under any condition. But the real problem is the store has no visibility whatsoever from Main Street and from the main intersection. The store is hidden behind the old donut shop which has been closed for a few months and that makes the situation even worse, and it is also blocked by the Mobil Gas Station from the Northeast corner of Beach and Slater. (I did provide you with some pictures). This business has been here for over twenty (20) years under two different corporations, but ever since I took over this sign has been my biggest problem. It is frustrating to pay so much for different applications and labels and being at public hearings at the Department of Community Development so many times. It was part of the contract with the previous owner (Stop & Go Markets) to leave the sign for me but unfortunately they removed the sign because there was some miscommunication between the Stop & Go Markets' corporate office and district office and now I have to pay the price. I have a hard time understanding why I could keep that sign by replacing the face but I cannot have a brand new sign, less colorful and 50% smaller. I deeply appreciate your help and cooperation in keeping this sign because my business depends on it. Sincerely, Ahmad Mozaffari Max Food Markct Q� 17438 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ICE • I - I , i : I I1 • ... .... .. ..1....... ._..��._t— ,--_t—_..r—_ __�I__ _ —I-�-1- • �7"lam I Ain TJ 1 I ' I • , I -- ----L-- -- - - - - - - — - W�, 17 19 � � —�LF2L►M �(LE�.+T'EQ.• i � _ I I - . ' - --- I I - ! w" 9 -1Dq' - i _ r 1 � � � I•—' II ff AtN- — � o+ ,S«r ------------------------- -- -------I :-- + - i : -- I , �S�cwl I II 1 _ ,9 ._..: !74.... ... .----'....----------;117�1..�.2,. -. ... .irc'AC.N.: 1 +rya - - ' .' -:--::.... :.�_, •l S �n,f��PbC - 39 I - u-I -W 1 I II . _ O•i � I i ql r. I ' s I � I I •� f STERLTNG CENTER 174 '. - 174_'.Ei BEACH BLVD. HUNT I NGTON BEACH. CA T. GENERAL- Signs are not only effective as store identification, but ar•e a source of interest, excitement and good advertising when designed with taste and in harmony with the design standards of the shopping center-. The sign r-equlations herein have been established for, the purpose of achieving the best possible effect for store identification and over-all design. while allowing each tenant creativity within the limits of their- leasehold. E::perience has proven thAt all stur-ey in the Center- benefit by the establishment of sicn contr-ols such as herein set forth. II . APPROVALS A. The design and construction of tenant s r :terior sign Mus-r receive written approval by the landlord and the City r_,f Huntington Beach pr•io+, to fabrication and installation. Landlord's approval shall be based on: 1) Confor^mitt' to the sign cr•iter•ia established -for- the center•, including fabrication and method of installation. ?) Harmony of the proposed siqn with the design standards of the "Steelinq [.enter-" and co-tenants. Landlord has the specific right to refuse approval of any sign which does not conform to the specific cr•iter•ia set forth herein. B. To Secure landlor-d's approval, tenant agrees to conform to the following procedure: 1) Three copies of the detailed sign design drawing shall be submitted to landlord at: STERLING CENTER =6=5 BIRCH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661:1 ATTENTION: MR. J. SCOTT FAWCETT TELEPHONE: 714-756-8677 FAX NO. : 714-756-646 C. Unless landlord_ has received the above -described plans in the quantities set forth above, landlord will not apprc:rve tenant 's exterior sign. The sign drawings ar•e to be pr•epar•ed by a reputable state licensed sign contractor. The sicn drawings must indicate the "following information: 1) A scaled storefront drawing reflecting the proposed sign design and all dimensions, as it relates to the storefront- elevation of tenant 's premises. D A plot plan indicating location of tenant sign. ) Sizes of siqns must be accurately dimensioned, spaced and drawn at a minimuM of ire" 1 '-r: " scale. 4) Section through sign and facia to show its construction methods. 5) Fle;:19lass colors, pant finishes, and types of mat e=vials. STERLING CENTER 6) Interior illumination to be BC MA. high outuut fluorescent lamps on 1+!" centers +or even lightinq. 7) Landlord may r•r?qUire a color swatch n+ sign design. D. All drawings marl:.ed "Disapproved" or "Approved as Neted" must be resubmitted as here and above set forty; in paragraph "B" with required corrections. l'enant or• its sign contractor will not be per-mitted to commence installation of the a::ter•ior• sign, unless the following_ conditions have occurred: 1 ) A stamped set or the final sicr•, dr•a•gings r-Nfl.ectinq landlord s approval. are r•etainr_d at tenant .s pert+mi=_,es at all times during the installation of design and foi- a period of thirty (=C ) days thee-e&rter•. 2) NOTE: No sign shall be constructed until approved building permits from the City of Huntington !;each buildinq any Safety Department are :•eceived by the tenant. 1II. GENERAL SIGN C'RITERlA AND RESTRICTIONS A. Each tenant shall be allowed one 111U.Minated sign to be located on the space and on the surface specially provided foi^ same on the buildinq exterior in accordance with the drawing attached hereto. Tenant 's with a corner, unit will be permitted two signs providing the sign area does not e::ceed the maximum allowed by City codes. P. The advertising or information content on the sign shall be limited to letters designating the store name or established trade logo. C. The opaque aluminum face color- -for' all signs shall be navajo white. Letter, type styles of all signs shall be subject to Landlord 's approval. In the event the tenant does not have an established a>:ter-ior sign identity, t{ia landlord recommends that the lettering style be designers by a sign contractor, to r•e+lect a visually exciting loot::. Established trade logos and sianage shall be permitted. providing they conform to the criteria described herein. D. The tenant shall pay for• all signs. their, installation (including final connection, and all other, labor and material ) and maintenance. Tenant 's signcontr•actor• must Mile, pay and obtain any licenses, permits and variances as required for• sign installation. E. Interior signs (within .'_•6" of window) , all e::posed interior neon, vinyl letters, painted showcar-ds or- painted window signs must be approved by landlord and his designated consultant prior to fabrication and installation. Window signage is regulated by the City sign code. F.- NOTE: Pages 5 and 6 ar-e an integral part of this e::hibit. Please refer- to this page for• additional information. IV. FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION A. The rollowinq information lists materials, colot-s, raicl design guidelines for• Sterlinq Center. The basic oesiun shapes, sizes, and colors must be - co) lowed. STERLING CENTER -_- B. Fabrication shall be restricted to the foll.ow.ina: 1) Superior• Mark: "10" anodized extruded aluminum cabinet. 10" deep with service access to lamps. ballasts, and wiring through Super•ior• 's patented swing pinned retainer system. ?) All cabinets to be -6" high. Length of cabinets shall not exceed 75% of leasehold width. All cabinets must be centered horizontally and vertically over tenant 's store front leasehold. Please refer to Page 5 for further information. a) Maximum height of letter's is 20". Minimum height of letters is B". No more than two rows of copy allowed. Seventy-five per cent (75%) cf all copy must be in English. •_) High output 900 MA fluorescent interior illumination on center's for even lighting. 4) Aluminum face designed to hang from top of cabinet to avoid face bow. Face to be tied into Superior 's retainer system via Superior's Patented "Mari:: 10" cad and rod system. 5) Copy to be routed from background and backed with +/16" thick ple::iglass. 6) Cabinet interior to have white reflective paint finish for even lighting. 7) Sign company identification and data labels shall not be on the face of any sign or letter's. Labels should be placed on the side of cabinets and letter's in an inconspicuous area. B) It is the responsibility of the tenant 's sign contractor to verify at the job site _all conditions prior to fabrication to insure the approved design can be fabricated and installed following all of the above requirements. C. Materials and Colors 1) Cabinet Faint Colors -. Dark Bronze 2) Aluminum Background Color Frazee 05860M Navajo White 3) Letters and Logo Colors - Tenant may choose any color, but all colors are subject to landlord approval. D. Wall_ signs shall be brought _into conformance as new tenants occupy each tenant space. Existing wall si.yns will remain as is Tor all existing tenants.- E. Enisting Pylon Signs: The two e:aisting pylon signs (Lamp Factory and Man Market) shall remain as is until either• tenant changes. At that time both pylon signs shall be removed and replaced with one 7'-0" high, `rU sq. ft. monument sign identifying the name of the center and two tenants. See page 6 for Design and Fabrication details. STERLING CENTER -4- PROHIBITED SIGNS 1. SIGNS CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD No person shall install or maintain or cause to be installed or maintained any sign which simulates or imitates in size, color. lettering or design any traffic sign or signal , or which makes use of the words "STOP", "LOOS::", "GANGER", or any other words. phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner to intertere with, mislead or confuse. traffic. ?. IMMORAL OR UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING It shall be unlawful for any person to enhihit. Post or display cause to be a"hibited, posted or displayed upun any sign, anything of an obscene, indecent, or immoral nature or unlawful activity. Z. SIGNS OR DOORS, WINDOWS OR FIRE ESCAPES No window signs will be permitted except as noted herein. No sign shall be installed, relocated, or maintained so as to prevent tree ingress to on egress from any door. No sign of any kind shall be attached to a stand pipe incept those signs, as required by code or ordinance. 4. ANIMATED, AUDIBLE OR MOVING SIGNS Signs consisting of any moving, swinging, rotating, flashing. blinking, scintillating, fluctuating or otherwise animated light are prohibited. 5. VEHICLE SIGNS Signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other• vehicles which advertise, identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries of sales . or merchandise or rendering of services from such vehicles, is prohibited. 6. LIGHT BULB STRINGS AND EXPOSED TUBING External displays, other than temporary decorative holiday lighting, which consist of unshielded light bulbs, and open, exposed neon or gaseous light tubing, are prohibited. 7. Interior window sign of any type must have prior approval of landlord be+ore installation. B. No portable signage stating restrictive parking or exclusive pa&king shall be allowed unless specifically noted in lease. STERLING.CRI/he Stan Janocha June 12. :ytl 9 1 ' 7 old Ste.,u s -ro TSE La�.tP S y Stye SwN 4-- �L-Lj 1�, : 1' ell {- STERLING CENTER 21-01 I'-er L M PS f• � ' LGY G FAC""1 ORY. OTJ'1'LIET MARKET P 11� ��o Q I u JJa BEER & WINE _4 . " 17422-17438 _ •T of PL—c•l K UJw�e�f2S 1 . l r..L �' (aluc«la w•w1Jp1J� Q ` a JI c- rmL-E!S--/.--T Io 1� moo: F°cr_Olypt= u-wr(IMA tED pic UHCt4r eA6f� 10 ' �hYpPf lo' twmADED -wHitaum [_134NET'S FP-4N v . PovTCD•ovT ^AArHINUr i �i4C.E"� PpCl-F-p-LAF W" W^ � • . (��•�-� pp.�sW�.T�D Ar.uNINUH PEDEST�C-/ «MLA (�.TEv. INTE04M II-Wril K-mcl%l 1D M BGi7 MA,•A4614 OIITR.CT FLOUR ,Fl.TT-l/Y t{�S. Ln W A W -�e••.�pc4ia c.r��ar-.sue e.L l�rJ�^�arnv �rve•�do�c.v -.-.b inv 'Z.o-.mv J�r�s�.ao.�e-+� 1-vw ir�.r-r-al-va.o-,o� voe-,car-�•v tv�..L.L.r� C� 7✓LLIN^�of^.'i--1 w og7G W zvAJ-»� �r-111o�0„ . wnf�lwl T�� jZ�woIQJ srssv'ra - crro-,o-� lf-Iti� J.�r-Il�rvo 0 r-�e noLLvr+IwTr�l y�oruilrVl ilw»�T+� vw c^a�1(•�.tLno Fa�/H fll c Lrvr.,-..aL s►� 1�-T�vr�lvo.. oifc-� r+ oQr+a�L m V 1 �a lcnw �1�r•-I�vv Tv•HLGy1M moo.-I�� .+- aprcL c�*o��,� f1 1er-1 �'-�vrK C1�rly�-.^� Jo 1--Ilof�^�n•HOIH n'�-ev-= -alz;=X�' c . cJ-pf-Il�ld o("wl�••.v �ti•rysle'd 9,77o1�11d(IC HOI'�e�j Ht �-J�ry1M �1 v � '1-+el-+Ivrs-� wry,-Ilwn-,v c.•*oof�x>• c.�L,ocr�.r of �+r��w velr��dnc - m • � 01 ', r-lolc a Oo-I b�' Slv7^ r-1 ol.(.d/�=J-T-� r17�C .`y.�.�.' .,.+.,,,..,�+..p ','•� 7-Z I 1 1 � )A 1 amr-4Ivl---V la `` t � ^ f-ilG11M Q-1c.N�ov'�'1 .lo (•7.ow)x9L 9 r-1o/1�i��-i� �r•il�+-11�>4 J � ' Do Ln r•-------n r----.1 T-- ' L-------J -----J L- -- - --- --------- -- � I �II��lffi Pti•4r.-wv" 1 1':.l�1� („-"")j'6L rti`�•)s'GI. I•-ualr.O-.c,-1�ay.r, c r•.,..,raL �1�(�11.111 �►�v1.f`.o�. r�vtrvo�.-1 »v1r�dJ �r�vtc ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Applicant's Request) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is not provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. 2. The proposed pole signs do not adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are not excessive in sign height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 3. The proposed signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because the signs are not excessive in height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan and sign elevation dated August 19, 1993. 2. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. 3. Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner's representative. 4. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord's approval. 5. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 6. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. hflp194 ;.j"j& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ea" 2000 MAIN STREET . CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK March 21, 1994 Ahmad Mozaffari/Max Market 17438 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mr. Mozaffari: The public hearing on the appeal filed by Councilmember Silva on your behalf was continued to March 7, 1995 until the Sign Committee returns with their recommendation. Please call the Community Development Department 536-5271 if you have any questions or my office if I may be of assistance. Sincerely, Connie Brockway City Clerk cc: Sterling Center Gail Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Mike Adams, City Administrator Councilmember Jim Silva (Telephone:714-536.5227) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARR 2 APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 7, 1994 APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Council Member Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approx. 200 feet north of Slater Ave.) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial to retain two 15 feet high non- conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall, or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Ave.) after March 3, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Approved by City Adm*ration COVER SHEET FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS N/A YES NO ( ) Was City Council or Planning Commission public hearing notice typed on Wang? ( ) ( ) If appeal, are appellant and applicant shown on legal notice? ( ) ( ) If housing is involved, is "legal challenge paragraph" included? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commission Office on the labels? ( ) Is Title Company verification letter attached? ( ) ( ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used? 'CSC ( ) ( ) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels? w ( ) Is day of public hearing correct - Monday/Tuesday? ( ) Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set? ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council. ( ) ( ) Are the appellant/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels? "ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing.and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please, call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5227." For Public Hearings at the City Council level please insert the above paragraph of the public hearing notice: CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET - 2ND FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 . (714) 536-5227 1350K - 9/93 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 i (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 7, 1994 APPLICATION NUMBED: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Council Member Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approx. 200 feet north of Slater Ave.) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial to retain two 15 feet high non- conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL S Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall, or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Ave.) after March 3, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Al. •I R !!Z SW!/4, NW 114,SEC ZS.tt Ss.;R./I W. -�•� 46 • v 48 s TRACT TRACT r•'�.c• v-0c) r► AT HOR.2 WD O ±O O ,(D 471 O ' SEE oLGE t w 5P9 L•� F 12A zcy:)K_16-T 1Pa1 �' rea•� a.• 3 r2 � cae�ERav � a NO. 795✓^ »:.•',< rzf. 2 .�.� cs' sa• ,ze• J , 1 - �,. <.I N.235 i ,O � Y O u O ^ A S. !I-9 ca O - f••' Q �� ti V ` � ,. S (P. G Q k • r' rrias ors or• M -BOULEVARD - + .%� B£/!CN / N1/N77NG/ON BEACH S. va ip .F �. �r. .oy.. ..<rs♦ 009r 8 95C . e oC. •� e31 a ^ J M r I.ML.1/Y 1N < 1 q 0 i rt v; S-7Nd7pu NOS733:/ id •► 'a 'or 167-313 PACE 2 Of 2 31 1� HOL L AND DR/V£ TRACT ..rn L� 4� rO ? F21 2a (2z� L//• HINDr =-SEA^ FrT frs.o CIRCLES- , e A Ztj j. (313 • ter. 8 +` ~� r9 /B, . %G r a;i.'..' ,,a ,•�. u �ii } it wlivoY SANDS;axratE S:FEErS/CIRCLE ; ice' --------------------------- -^-� �.:n• r • �FJO•JtG� ;� 85 { .ems.r12(o 27:,,;e VO. 7950 31 M,.41?CH 1974 TRACT NO 7950 !N -if 936-:%,:2 :++;f ni}r57C`F S F;r;cK S f::C4;167 a:;r 313 IN CiR(Al.S �C:i.':7'f i� i.;r:.:•::., i i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 7, 1994 APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Council Member Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approx. 200 feet north of Slater Ave.) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial to retain two 15 feet high non- conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall, or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Ave.) after March 3, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 For : Ma r i n i t a Dev' Co. C_-0 P l/ Of : Situs : APN 167- -03 • By: Cathy Mc Dermot�8/93 , 165 234 07 a� 165 234 08 165 234 13 Beach Vista Beach Vista Sidney Wasserman Centre Slater Centre Slater 31 NORTHAMPTON CT 2030 E ORANGETHORPE AVE PO BOX 35910 NEWPORT BEACH, CA FULLERTON, CA LOUISVILLE , KY 92660-4206 7" 165 234 18 Jf 167 312 01 167 312 02 Beach Vista Churchill William Jr . Robert Autrey Centre Slater PO BOX 2663 PO BOX 90639 2030 E ORANGETHORPE AVE HARRISBURG, PA LONG BEACH, CA FULLERTON , CA 17105-2663 90809-0639 167 312 03 167 312 04 g 167 312 05 Sterling Center Wilbur Lorbeer Mobil Oil Corp 217 S VIOLET LN 5320 E 2ND ST PO BOX 290 ORANGE, CA 92669-3740 LONG BEACH, CA DALLAS, TX 75221 -0290 90803-5350 167 312 06 //. 167 312 07 12 167 312 08 Arthur Jan Ho Beach Huntington Beach Huntington 3331 BOUNTY CIR 8101 SLATER AVE Fountain Valley Associa HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA 8101 SLATER AVE 92649-2806 92647-6924 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA �3 167 313 01 1S4 167 313 02 /i5; 167 313 03 Joseph Schottmiller Rohrig Kevin Michael McMahon 8081 WINDY SEA CIR 8071 WINDY SEA CIR 8061 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-6335 92647-6335 92647-6335 167 313 04 /'7 167 313 05 167 313 06 David Morrow Ming-Liang Shiao Jerzy Wladyslaw Dambski Mona Morrow 817 S SHANADA CT Anna Dambski 18636 PASEO PIZARRO ANAHEIM, CA 92807-4889 8072 WINDY SEA CIR IRVINE, CA 92715-3331 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 167 313 07 2Cj. 167 313 08 21 167 313 09 Clint & Susan Berger Scott Boxley Gordon Curtiss 8082 WINDY SEA CIR Linda Boxley 8071 WINDY SANDS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 18588 COTTONWOOD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-6335 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92647-6334 167 313 10 2_z, 167 313 11 Z 46 167 313 12 Edward Van Doren Bruce Bates Wilbur Templeton Janette Van Doren 8052 WINDY SANDS CIR Nan Templeton 1520 CENTER ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 17312 ROB ROY CIR WEED, CA 96094-2122 92647-6334 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 2S 167 313 13 _26 167 313 14 �7 167 313 15 Michael McTiernan Jerry & Coraljean Zeno Stewart Shimoda 8072 WINDY SANDS CIR 8082 WINDY SANDS CIR 25012 CRYSTAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEAC CA HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA . EL TORO,. CA 92630-2509 92647-6334 92647-6334 167 313 16 Z7 167 313 17 dc) 167 313 18 Ren Lee A Mark Soderberg Manuel Siprut 8102 WINDY SANDS CI 15058 HEATHER LN PO BOX 23004 HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA LAKE ELSINORE , CA DES MOINES, IA 92647-6343 92530-5259 50325-9406 167 3 19 167 313 20 167 313 21 Inez Ki el Sidney Katz Byung & Sung Lee 20079 G ARBOR CT 8092 WINDY SEA CIR 8102 WINDY SEA CIR SARA A, 95070-3840 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-6341 92647-6341 167 313 22 167 313 23 167 313 24 Susan Long Andrew Roy Abrecht Sarah Gloria Markman 8111 WINDY SEA CIR Patricia Abrecht 8091 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 8101 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-6341 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-6341 167 313 25 mod, 167 471 21 167 472 01 Beach Villas Assn Kay Honda Carlos Benevenia 8071 WINDY SEA CIR 17452 ZEIDER LN Irma Benevenia HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 17502 BEACH BLVD 92647-6335 92647-6338 HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA Total records = 39 CR screened = 0 Dups screened = 0 Bad address = 0 Labels produced = 39 �3t lt�� 3i3- tq �3oq Wt Nt-f SAwbS, G 2 4T.L., Cd• 92lo4? • i 300' Tenants' List Applicant/Owner Occupant APN 167-312-03 1 Scott Fawcett • 17422 Beach Blvd. 3835 Birch St. Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 Newport Beach,Ca.92660 i i i Occupant Occupant Occupant 17434 1/2 Beach Blvd. 17428 Beach Blvd. 17438 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 Huntington Beacli,Ca.92647 i I Occupant Occupant Occupant 17430 Beach Blvd. 17432 Beach Blvd. 17434 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 Huntington Beach,Ca.92647 -- Gvi\e oP I aocd��+.:►.� STD L18, Gad.- of A coo $ I PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) Ss. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am ` Pusric HorcE over the age of eighteen years, and not a PUBioC.m HEARING APPEA� party to or interested in the below oF^aa 3 SPECIAL SIGN entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PERMIT�,NO 9311 ,jAppe of� 1• , the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Plannaling' CommISSI011'S Denlaq.;i news paper of general circulation, printed NorcE IS ;HEAEav p p g p GIVEN that the HunLngton and published in the City of Huntington B ld.apU lic au" will hold a:public healing 1n the: Beach County of Orange State of Hunt[ l tChamber=gat the, , , Huntingfon Beach .Civic: Censer,-2000 Marn_'Streef, California, and-:.,that attached Notice is a Huntington Beach;€Galifor- nia on-the date and at the true and complete copy as was printed time Indi ated below to it pN_FyILE*A, copyy�of;the` calve and�consi.1 t a proposed request is on+fife statements Hof all'^personsl m the-,Cis' Clerks Office` and publishedin the Huntington Beach who'wtsh`tobe'heard'rela'--' 2000:M mStreet.,Huntin`' and Fountain Valley issues of said � ti,,6-6 the�`applicati.node ton Qe h-,"g horn W scribed;below. 92648 tfor.mspecLon ;ay DA'TE7TIME Monday';' the)publlc.A�copy ol,.the newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: March3Z,1994 &� tr { staff reportwlll fie available APtLIGAT;I,O�N, NU�MBERl totl`nterestedhpartlesyat City° :Appeguot SpecialrS�gn Per,, Hall or the`<;MainF Cdy:•U and NO.s93 11 �a t brar "711,1...Talbert=:AV- APPLI,CANT "J Scott y ' " , - � �. anus)a er March 3 1994..=, Fawcett ALL ;INTERESTEDLf PEfa I APPELLANT Council-; SONS_are]mwtdd totatterid Member Jim Silva; r�ti`9�` 91,andirexpres`s February 24, 1994 , LOCATION 11742217438 said heann r"ri r t ss, opinions ors submit pevi Beach,:'Blvd (eastsideof, dance::for. or-against rthe' Beach-.Blvd., ,gopIox 200, appllcation `asf;outl ried feet north 0!SlaYer;Ave j .,' above:1Nnttencommun!ca- ZONE C4z(Highway Com. Lon may'also be-sent�to merciaq- :r +� ` the;-City.-Clerk tf there are. REOUESTtAppeal of the an further `uestlons. declare, under penalty of perjury, that Planning4ommissions de please4`call Hairb�Fauland;, nial to;retain twoj15 feet. Assoclate Planner at (71,4)! the foregoing is true and correct. high;non conforming tires 536 527I�KaaWA standing - sijns m lieu" ��'do_21nnle, Br dRWay,t of compliance wdhAUrnited' Sign "Nd6w 91 9 which re• Qlty�Cr�erkF, Clty�of,' n gwred-the removalftf the tin Hun gtbh+f �each,�20 Executed on February Itwolsign_s by September Ma1n5StreetHunting- FebrU 24 1 9 9 4 17 19934 ' �,--I x aton Beach, C.A 92640' ! ENVIRONMENTAL STA- I(714)536 S22T ,, r at Costa Mesa, California. TUS Cat ego m r!cally'exept A'i he Publisd Huntington pursuanititotSect(on 15301;� Beach-Fountamt�,Valley 1n= Class f of the "California F - 1 dependent February',24 n'm ; Enwroental Ouality Act c 1994 y s f t!' ; COASTAL STATU Not applicable 024714! Signature 3 V� - ��- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIA APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 7, 1994 APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 APPLICANT: J. Scott Fawcett APPELLANT: Council Member Jim Silva LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approx. 200 feet north of Slater Ave.) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial to retain two 15 feet high non- conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall, or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Ave.) after March 3, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 3 1�' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Jim Silva, City Council Member DATE: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Appeal to the Planning Commission Denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The request is to retain two existing pole signs located in the Sterling Center at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). The reason for this appeal is as follows: The city is currently reviewing the requirements of zoning regulations for signs in light of the city's current economic climate. Therefore any approval for a modified sign would be based on speculation of the regulations for the new sign code. The request is for the retention of two non conforming signs not the establishment of new non conforming;therefore, this request would not add to the number of non conforming signs. In addition to the above stated reasons, I feel that the City Council should have the desire and responsibility to retain business in Huntington Beach. I further believe that the Council should make the final decision on matters which directly effect the economic conditions of the community. xc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator FAB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH x m c r-� a ^t TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk s FROM: Jim Silva, City Council Member w DATE: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Appeal to the Planning Commission Denial of Special Sign_ Permit 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The request is to retain two existing pole signs located in the Sterling Center at 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). The reason for this appeal is as follows: The city is currently reviewing the requirements of zoning regulations for signs in light of the city's current economic climate. Therefore any approval for a modified sign would be based on speculation of the regulations for the new sign code. The request is for the retention of two non conforming signs not the establishment of new non conforming;therefore, this request would not add to the number of non conforming signs. In addition to the above stated reasons, I feel that the City Council should have the desire and responsibility to retain business in Huntington Beach. I further believe that the Council should make the final decision on matters which directly effect the economic conditions of the community. xc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator huntington beech department of community development STAff - REPORT--EXECUTIVE SUNIlKARY DECEMBER 7. 1993 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 (17422-17438 Beach Boulevard) Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission denied Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 which was a . request to reface one (1) of the two (2) non-conforming pole signs on-site, but approved Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. The approval of the planned sign program allowed the retention of the two (2) pole signs for a maximum period of two (2) years (Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9) with the stipulation that the signs be removed and replaced with a 'seven (7) foot high monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. Staff does not support the applicant's request because the applicant has already enjoyed the privilage of the use of the two (2) pole signs for a period of two (2) years, the signs are excessive in height, and the retention of two (2) poles signs on 80 feet of frontage is in violation of the sign code and is not in keeping with the policy of signs along Beach Boulevard. Staff recommends denial of Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 which would allow the two (2) non-conforming signs to be retained with findings for denial. .r • • t TOtsA AIMI . .I MC► 1 CWY'fA EDVRM • � I ♦ sm TVARIM ♦ SLOM w_ 00000 TAU.N= FT / . _ .CAAIUMMM SITE ADAM • �XCLANAeous • ATZAITU HAMM N RAMQdON AVE p uATCA m , ASK 1 R, ssp 93- 11 HTTNTTN/-TnN RW A/'LT DT.A NNTWr-T\TVTCTnN TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 7, 1993 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 93-11 APPLICANT/ J. Scott Fawcett PROPERTY 3835 Birch Street OWNER: Newport Beach, CA 92660 REOUEST: To retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs. LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard (eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue) DATE ACCEPTED: November 23, 1993 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial EXISTING USE: Shopping Center ACREAGE: .55 (23,965 square feet) 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to: "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings. " 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 is a request to retain two (2) , 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two signs by September 17, 1993 . i 3 .0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Medical Building/Service Station West of Subject Property (Across Beach Boulevard) : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Commercial 4 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5.0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6.0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8.0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. - 9 .0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 and Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 which was a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot high freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The proposal also included the establishment of a master sign program for the small retail center. The Planning Commission denied the special sign permit but approved the planned sign program with the stipulation that the two (2) 15 foot high non-conforming freestanding pole signs which identify Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet be permitted for a maximum period of two (2) years through Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 expired Staff Report - 12/7/93 -2- (7458d) on September 17, 1993 and requires the removal of the two (2) pole signs . The signs are to be replaced by a single seven (7) foot high monument sign as required by the planned sign program for the retail center. Planned Sign Program The Master Sign Program for Sterling Center includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No. 3) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Special Sian Permit The applicant states that the retention of the two (2) pole signs is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (24 sq. ft. of sign area) and for Lamps Factory Outlet (48 sq. ft. of sign area) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is screened from the street by an existing building. Lamps Factory Outlet is located to the front of the lot along Beach Boulevard but is partially screened by the existing building. Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and Lamps Factory Outlet on-site, the screening of the suites by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. Staff believes that two (2) freestanding signs along the 80 feet of frontage is excessive. Also, there is a freestanding pole sign on an adjacent lot which adds to the sign clutter. This adjacent lot is the location of the building which obstructs the retail center requesting the retention of their signs. Therefore, there are three (3) freestanding pole signs along a 160 foot frontage along Beach . Boulevard. The signage along this portion of Beach Boulevard is cluttered and excessive and staff believes the implementation of the planned sign program is an improvement of signage and also will continue to provide the two (2) tenants with exposure along Beach Boulevard. An example of improved signage along Beach Boulevard is the Holland Center (Centerfield Sports Bar) . This center has brought its signage into conformance with the implementation of a planned sign program. Through the entitlement process, the center has removed a freestanding pole sign and replaced it with a code conforming monument sign. Staff believes that the monument sign will provide adequate signage for the businesses as well as the small shopping center. Design Review Board On October 21, 1993, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed sign for colors, materials and design only. The Board did not comment or make any recommendations regarding the special sign permit request. The Board did recommend the colors, materials and Staff Report - 12/7/93 -3- (7458d) design of the signs for the retail center as required and depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 . The recommendation was by unanimous vote. Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant ' s need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of the suites being blocked from view by another building. However, staff does not believe the retention of the non-conforming freestanding pole signs and maintaining the life of the signs is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit. 10 .0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 and the applicant has enjoyed the privilege of using the signs for the past two (2) years. 2. The proposed pole signs may adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are excessive in sign height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 3 . The proposed signs may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because of the signs excessive height, are located on only 80 feet of frontage .and because the signs are not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. ATTA r), NTS: 1. Applicant' s Narrative 2. Site plan and sign elevation dated August 19, 1993 3 . Monument sign, Planned sign Program No. 91-7 4 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 17, 1991 5. Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval SH: F:ss Staff Report - 12/7/93 -4- (7458d) STERLING CENTER 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach,, CA 92660 (714) 756-8677 August 19,, 1993 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Sterling Center 17422-38 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Dear Commissioners: We are requesting a special sign permit for the purpose of maintaining the existing sign program at the subject shopping center. Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 allows the two existing pole signs identifying a lamp store and market to remain until September 17, 1993. If we are required to remove the pole signs,. these two businesses will suffer a further loss of sales. This is because an existing Mexican Restaurant, not a part of Sterling Center, blocks the visability of these businesses. Due to the declining economy and resultant reduction of income, we do not have the money to replace these signs. Banks have refused our request to borrow money to build a new monument sign structure along with new signs. The shopping center is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site. We are hopeful that the Commission will understand the hardship we are faced with and act favorably upon our request. Sincerely yours, STERLING CENTER J. Scott Fawcett General Partner JSF/ke Enclosures --------160.00-------- i .0 , IN• n• FACTORY BEER 8I ( LAMPS OUTLET WINE sa.00 62.00 8: _ 1 -e-D ) LARGE SHADE DEPT. MARKET T STERLING CENTER ' EASEIfENT\ I t SML POIX �'— - 6, — Polz g s >I g 110.00 22 I e I � M RESTAURANT I y r elan.Pots Ic area.POLE ' 40.00 b 'CARPS POLE SIGN NOT A PART 140 'NAX' POLE SIGN + • POLE SIGN 1 ////////r///777777/ BFWIT BNI_ --�— N.T.S. N.T.S. ' EXISTING SIGNS AND POLES STERLING CENTER A.P./ 107-312-03 SCALE: 1' _ 20' DRAWN FOR: STERLING CENTER 3835 BIRCH STREET STERLING CENTER 14MPOW BEACH, CA. 92660 J scorn FAWCETT. 17422-30 HEACH P.. '1.EVARU GENERAL PARTNER (714) 756-8077 HUNTINGTON M, ,, CA. to -o wmu-+�T l�s�istllll.rt POM `J] 4 •3 STERLING CENTER 2 -0 m PS ►- 9 ' ' FACTORY ()T7'1'�.ls'1' a4' � 3 } 1 I�yo MARKET =0 Q BEER & WINE ' ar 1 L 17422-17438 4#^.I.t•`A"M.JTAUJ OLA" �—6 rt.►e1 K�,hlnwecl2S ` JUI r' (sluagJ��whlstOJ j p ! 1 1 1 vl L •'wpf- to EKTPM=D t+Wt-(Ir4Ut-A USrn1ET*FP4WM GPF MItt1YE. potrnv•Ow �►wr+l Hurl F^4v� bp-LAr WK Ptae•�!t•Ic t�.►6 f- W t' •cow color TOI.r•ov�: CU . ' •L(,(y(•gq Pp�p�,p.�tp Au1f•'i1NUN at=,DEST�Exrvr� GD�.TCv. � �+ �� • • MTER+GR•�I•u.1H1P1e.T1Q.1 '(fl SE � sue•FH6H Ol.�i�AT Pt.OUR�iiibTR'L/t'�S� W � , J huntington beach department of community development STAR REp®R TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September 17, 1991 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-9/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 91-7 APPLICANT: Ahmed Mozaffari/Max Market DATE ACCEPTED: 17438 Beach Boulevard September 6, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Sterling Center November 5, 1991 OWNER: 217 S. Violet Lane Orange, CA 92669 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REQUEST: To permit the face change of a non-conforming 15 foot GENERAL PLAN: General freestanding pole sign (Max Commercial Market) and -the establish- ment of a sign program for EXISTING USE: Shopping the shopping center. Center LOCATION: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard ACREAGE: .55 (23,965 sf) (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north Slater Avenue) 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to: A. "Deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings; and" B. "Approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign fora maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. " 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 in conjunction with Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 is a request to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market. The project also includes the establishment of a master sign program for the shopping center. IT-- A-FM-23C . 1 1 Special Sign Permit No. 91-7 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 961, (Signs) in the following area: 1. Section 9610.5(b) specifies that commercial sites with less than 400 feet on one (1) frontage are permitted one (1) freestanding monument sign, maximum seven (7) feet high with 50 square feet of sign area.- The applicant is requesting the face change of an existing 15 foot non-conforming pole sign and to maintain the life of the non-conforming sign. 3 -0 SURROUNDING LAND USE. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Shopping Center North and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) . LAND USE: Commercial Fast of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Professional ZONE: OP (Office Professional) LAND USE: Medical Building South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND- USE: Medical Building/Mobil Station 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: - The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. $. 0 SUBDIVISION- COMMITTEE: Not applicable. Staff _ Report - 9/17/91 -2- (0730d) 9 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background On May 21, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the annual. review of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-11 which established Max Market, a convenience store located in the Sterling Shopping Center. As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit the applicant is required to submit a planned sign program for the shopping center. The submittal of the planned sign program for Planning Commission action satisfies the condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-11 and closes the review process for the establishment of the use. Special Sign Permit The applicant is requesting approval of Special Sign Permit 'No. 90-9 to permit the face change and to maintain the life of a non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign identifying Max Market'. The applicant has refaced the sign without the benefit of obtaining a building permit and subsequently has been cited by the Land Use Division. The applicant's administrative remedy to permit the sign reface prior to obtaining a building permit is to seek approval of the special sign permit request. The applicant states that the reface of the pole sign is necessary in order to provide street identification for Max Market (see Attachment No. 2) . Sterling Center is located on an L-shaped lot, with only 80 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard. Max Market is located to the rear of the lot and is partially screened from the street by an existing building (Donuttery) and lot located directly in front of Max's Market (see Attachment No. 3) . Based upon the lot configuration, location of Max Market and screening of the suite by another building, the applicant requests approval of the special sign permit. M s.c I�ACCCf �- LkAp P 30T A. 1 A.'T f MA .7 T5L_\J Staff Report - 9/17/91 -3- (0730d) Staff 's analysis of the applicant 's request centers on the number of existing non-conforming pole signs on-site and the need for a center identification sign with major tenant identification. Currently, the site has two (2) non-conforming freestanding pole signs along the 80 foot Beach Boulevard frontage. These two (2) pole signs identify the two (2) major tenants of the center, Max Market and Lamps Factory' Outlet. In addition, the parcel directly in front of the L-shaped portion of the site and in front of Max Market also has a non-conforming freestanding pole sign. A total of three (3) - freestanding pole signs are located along a 160 foot frontage on Beach Boulevard. Staff believes that the applicant ' s request has some merit due to the lack of street visibility, however, staff also believes that a proper sign program can also relieve some of the clutter of freestanding signs on-site and also clean up the prohibited (roof) signs of the shopping center's building. In addition, staff does not recommend the granting of a special sign permit to vest the life of a non-conforming pole sign. This .is in keeping with the City's sign code and policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the aforementioned, staff does not believe that the necessary findings of fact to approve the applicant's request can be made. Staff does not support the special sign permit. Planned Sign Program The applicant has submitted a sign program for the Sterling Center. The sign program includes internally illuminated cabinet signs for business identification and a center identification monument sign with the two (2) major tenants identified (see Attachment No. 4) . The planned sign program substantially complies with the intent of the sign code and with City policy for signs along Beach Boulevard. Based upon the submittal of a viable master sign program that meets code requirements, addresses the center's need for center identification and major tenant identification, staff recommends that the pole sign be permitted for an interim period of a maximum two (2) years. This recommendation is based upon the fact -that no remodel, new construction or new use is proposed .on .site at this time. Any of the aforementioned scenarios would, however, require the implementation of the requirements of the, planned sign program. Staff also recommends that the planned sign program be submitted to the Design Review Board after Planning Commission action. for final review and approval. Conclusion Staff acknowledges the applicant's need to be identified along Beach Boulevard as a result of his suite being blocked from view by another building. . However, staff does not believe the reface of the non-conforming freestanding pole sign and maintaining the life of the sign is in keeping with the sign ordinance and with the policy for freestanding signs along Beach Boulevard. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the special sign permit and approval of the Staff- Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0730d) planned sign program to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years . At that time the monument sign included in the planned sign program shall be constructed and the two (2) non-conforming pole signs shall be removed. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings; and H. Approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and suggested conditions of approval to include the use of the pole sign for a maximum period of two (2) years from date of final approval and replacement with the monument sign included in the master planned sign program. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-9 : 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. 2. The proposed reface of a 24 square foot, non-conforming freestanding pole sign may adversely affect other signs in the area. The sign is excessive in sign height and is not proportional or compatible with the approved commercial signs in the area. 3 . The proposed sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign because of the signs excessive height and because the sign is not compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 91-7: 1. Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 will provide for signage that reflects a common- theme for the proposed center incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2. Planned Sign Program No. 91-7, provides for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the building. 3. The signs will be compatible with other -signs in the surrounding commercial center and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned sign Program No. 91-7. Staff Report - 9/17/91 -5- (0730d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM N0, 91-7 : 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan, sign elevations and building elevations dated June 12, 1991. 2. The written text of Planned Sign Permit No. 91-7 shall be modified to include the following language changes: a. All corner unit signage shall comply with Article 961. b. Length of sign cabinets shall not exceed 70% of leasehold widht. c. All signs identified as prohibited pursuant to Article 961 Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be included in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. d. The non-conforming 15 foot freestanding pole sign shall be permitted for a maximum of two (2) years from final approval. At the end of the two (2) year period from final approval the two (2) pole signs shall be removed and replaced by the monument sign as depicted in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 and in accordance with Article 961, Signs of the - Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. e. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. f. Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner's representative. g. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the * exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord' s approval. h. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructed, renovated or any alterations to the shopping center. are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a . Submit a revised written text pursuant to Condition No. 2. . b. The Design Review Board shall review and approve all signs as proposed in Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. Staff Report - 9/17/91 -6- (0730d) c The applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2, 000 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the two (2) on-site non-conforming freestanding pole signs. If the signs, are not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two (2) years from the date of final approval, or remodel of the property, whichever comes first, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said signs are located and remove said signs and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the rem-:inder, if may, returned to the person depositing the bond. 4 . Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a . special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No. 90-9 with findings and suggested conditions of approval and approve Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 with findings and modified suggested conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2. Applicant 's Narrative 3 . Site plan and sign elevation dated October 2, 1990 4 . Planned Sign Program No. 91-7 dated June 12, 1991 HS: j 1 Staff Report - 9/17/91 -7- (0730d) CP R2 Iworuscuc a I RI POLDER cot v MI R 2` R 2 A. : RI MLERICI• Do i CF-E R3 ----- AAR w = p'' RI RI IOAR v:[M!^.MOD•.) )l N i MI M I R3 RI "" RI R3 R 3 to C4. 4 R3 3 RI CF-E fAt ILARCY•tMS::NCAI R1 R1 I i NN IT1 i ..� �.. RI 3 py go °C iRI- PD RI RI RI e R3 R3 R3 R3 R3 '[l me..._ OP (yp —ULi AVc —�w•rcA AVf o MI MH Asa 2 R2 R2 M I c a ' .... R2 a tR,r a TRACT AM 3 ; 0 � RI RmA-A rt RI RI C R AV _ c4 I R3 s a n OR Mf Ar Q J K I R2 IE, R2 1 a R 2 MI MI - R3 �. - � � - U V d ' R1 r a R3 Y R2 C ° I , �p b OP j f MI-co YI R2 : • I o Call OP SP-I S ow. U ' • Umi R2 iraLmot Rstc.ve A. R:n •rw R2� R2 135 4 !A!• �V .... . I ' SSP 90'09/PSP 91-07 _ MNM'CTON UA04 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r 1 . 1 I I I f ♦ i I/f f • I • • • f a f. •I f t f• •• •f. September 11, 1991 r f I•• . •1' Huntington Beach Planning Commission Department of Community Development Huntington Beach, -"A. Subject: Special Sign Permit Gentlemen: Simply stated, I cannot conduct enough business without having a street sign under any condition. But the real problem is the store has no visibility whatsoever from Main Street and from the main intersection. The store is hidden behind the old donut shop which has been closed for a few months and that makes the situation even worse, and it is also blocked by the Mobil Gas Station from the Northeast corner of Beach and Slater. (I did provide you with some pictures). This business has been here for over twenty (20) years under two different corporations, but ever since I took over this sign has been my biggest problem. It is frustrating to pay so much for different applications and labels and being at public hearings at the Department of Community Development so many times. It was part of the contract with the previous owner (Stop & Go Markets) to leave the sign for me but unfortunately they removed the sign because there was some miscommunication between the Stop & Go Markets' corporate office and district office and now I have to pay the price. I have a hard time understanding why I could keep that sign by replacing the face but I cannot have a brand new sign, less colorful and 50% smaller. I deeply appreciate your help and cooperation in keeping this sign because my business depends on it. ` Sincerely, Ahmad Mozaffari / Max Food Markct 17438 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RLyl.nitaal��■�■ ■ N Ems �1'''IOIl1■■IIINI�IIIW�' grimm- m— gum m MZI In 1111101111110111 n � M■■Ild -`IN OEM NoIN No I IQJ 1 mmm 11 ■ - - ■I.l mllm ■■ 1 ST ERL T NG ('ENTER.' 1742= - 1 i4 Ei BEACH BLVD. HUNT I NGTON BEACH. CAA I. GENERAL zu 12 ) ` l ` l Signs are not only effective as store identification. but are a source of interest, excitement and good advertising when designed with taste and in harmony with the design standards of -the shopping center. The sign regulations herein have been established for the purpose of achieving the best possible effect for store identification and overall design. while allowing each tenant creativity within the limits of their leasehold. Experience has proven that all stores in the Center benefit by the establishment of sign coritr•ols such as herein set forth. II. APPROVALS A. The design and construction of tenant 's exterior siqn MUST receive written approval by the landlord and the City of Huntington beach prior to fabrication and installation. Landlord's approval shall be based on: 1) Conformity to the sign criteria established fo►- the center. including fabrication and method of installation. 2) Harmony of the proposed sign with the design standards of the "Steeling Center" and co-tenants. Landlord has the specific right to refuse approval of any sign which does not conform to the specific criteria set forth herein. B. To secure landlord's approval. tenant aqrees to conform to the following procedure: 1) Three copies of the detailed sign design drawing shall be submitted to landlord at: STERLING CENTER 3-835 BIRCH STREET NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92661:r ATTENTION: MR. J. SCOTT FAWCETT _ TELEPHONE: 714-756-8677 FAX NO. : 714-756-84:6 C. Unless landlord has received the above described plans in the quantities set forth above. landlord will not approve tenant 's exterior sign. The sign drawings are to be prepared by a reputable state licensed sign contractor. The sign drawings must indicate the following information.- 1) A scaled storefront drawing reflecting the -proposed sign design and all dimensions, as it relates to the storefront elevation of tenant's premises. 2) A plot plan indicating location of tenant sign. 3) Sizes of signs must be accurately dimensioned, spaced and drawn at a minimum of 1i2'" = 1 '-fir" scale. 4) Section through sign and facia to show its construction methods. 5) Plexiglass colors. paint finishes. and tvpes of materials. STERLING CENTER -_- 6) Interior illumination to be NC-V I•IA. high output fluorescent lamps on 10" centers ror even lightinq. 7) Landlord may require a color swatch o+ sign desiqn. D. All drawings marked "Disapproved" or "Approved as Noted" must be re-submitted as here and above set +or•th in paragraph "b" with required corrections. Tenant or its sign contractor, will not be permitted to commence installation of the exterior sign. unless the following conditions have occurred: 1) A stamped set of the final s:qn drawings r•eflectinq landlord 's approval are retained at tenant 's premises at all times during the installation of design and For- a period of thirty (30) days thereafter. 2) NOTE: No sign shall be constructed until approved building permits from the City o+ Huntington Beach Building and Safety Department are received by the tenant. III.`GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA AND RESTRICTIONS A. Each tenant shall be allowed one illuminated sign to be located on the space and on the surface specially provided for same on the building exterior in accordance with the drawing attached hereto. Tenant's with a corner unit will be permitted two signs providing the sign area does not exceed the maximum allowed by City codes. P. The advertising or information content on the siqn shall be limited to letters designating the store name or established trade logo. C. The opaque aluminum face color for all signs shal.l be navajo white. Letter type styles of all signs shall be subject to Landlord's approval. In the event the tenant does not have an established exterior sign identity, tlie. landlord recommends that the lettering style be dpsigned by a sign contractor to re+lect a visually exciting look:. Established trade logos and signage shall be permitted. providing they conform to the criteria described herein. D. The tenant shall pay for all signs. their installation (including final connection. and all other labor and material) and maintenance. Tenant's sign contractor, must file, pay and obtain any licenses. permits and variances as required for sign installation. E. Interior signs (within 36" of window) , all exposed interior neon, vinyl letters, painted showcards or painted window si.3ns must be approved by landlord and his designated consultant prior to fabrication and installation. Window signage is regulated by the City sign code. F. NOTE: Pages S and 6 are an integral part of this e::hibit. Please refer to this page for additional information. IV. FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION A. The following information lists materials. colors. and design guidelines for• Ster•linq Center. The basic design shapes. sizes. and colors must be followed. STERLING CENTER S. Fabrication shall be restricted to the following: 1) Superior Mar):: "10" anodized extruded aluminum cabinet, 10" deep with service access to lamps. ballasts. and wiring through Superior 's patented swing pinned retainer system. 2) All cabinets to be -6" high. Length of cabinets shall not exceed 75% of leasehold width. All cabinets must be centered horizontally and vertically over tenant 's store front leasehold. Please refer to Page 5 for further information. a) Maximum height of letters is 20". Minimum height cf letters is 8". No more than twc rows of copy allowed. Seventy-five per cent (75%) of all copy must be in T.) High output 800 MA fluorescent interior illumination on centers for even lighting. 4) Aluminum face designed to hang from top of cabinet to avoid face cow. Face to be tied into Superior's retainer system •.pia Superior's patented "Mark 10" pad and rod system. 5) Copy to be routed from background and backed with 3/16" thick plexiglass. 6) Cabinet interior to have white reflective paint finish for even lighting. 7) Sign company identification and data labels shall not be on the face of any sign or letters. Labels should be placed on the side of cabinets and letters in an inconspicuous area. e) It is the responsibility of the tenant 's sign contractor to verify at the job site all conditions prior to fabrication to insure the approved design can be fabricated and installed following all of the above requirements. C. Materials and Colors 1) Cabinet Faint Colors - Dark Bronze 2) Aluminum Background Color - Frazee #5860M Navajo White 3) Letters and Logo Colors - Tenant may choose any color-, but all colors are subject to landlord approval. D. . Wall signs shall be brought into conformance as new tenants occupy each tenant space. Existing wall signs will remain as is. for all e::ist).ng tenants. E. Existing Pylon Signs: The two existing pylon signs (Lamp Factory and Ma:; Market) shall remain as is until either tenant changes. At that time both pylon signs shall be removed and replaced with one 7'-0" high, 50 sq. ft. monument sign identifying the name of the center and two tenants. See Page 6 for• Design and Fabrication details. I STERLING CENTER -4- PROHIBITED SIGIJS 1. SIGNS CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD No person shall install or• maintain or• taus• to by installed or- maintained any sign which simulatrrs or• rmitatea in size. color, lettering or• design any traffic sign or signal, or• which makes use of the words "STOP", "LOOP:", "DANGER or any other words. Phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. 2. IMMORAL OR UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING It shall be unlawful for any person to e::hibit. post or• displav cause to be exhibited. posted or displayed upon anv sign, anything of an obscene, indecent, or immoral nature or unlawful activity. a. SIGNS OR DOORS, WINDOWS OR FIRE ESCAPES No window signs will be permitted except as noted herein. No sign shall be installed, relocated. or, maintained so as to prevent it ingress to or egress from any door. No sign of any kind shall be attached to a stand pipe except those signs, as required by code or ordinance. 4. ANIMATED. AUDIBLE OR MOVING SIGNS Signs consisting of any moving, swinging, rotating, flashing, blinking, scintillating, fluctuating or otherwise animated light are prohibited. 5. VEHICLE SIGNS Signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other vehicles which advertise, identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries of sales or merchandise or rendering of services from such vehicles, is prohibited. b. LIGHT BULB STRINGS AND EXPOSED TUBING External displays, other than temporary decorative holiday lighting, which consist of unshielded light bulbs, and open, exposed neon or gaseous light tubing. - are prohibited. 7. Interior window sign of any type must have prior approval of landlord before installation. 8. No portable signage stating restrictive parking or exclusive pa -king shall be allowed unless specifically noted in lease. - STERLING.CRI/he Stan Janocha June 12. 1991 � �30 l;LTLA4,3 tj 7 Co • 12 • g1 I-ramPLA,�-j N - Aci1' v N D 4D r- Two a�) `C"1C MOT A t?ae—1 i LaKp I 4-e-k4 `TsLv • cr �1411; ill po." 1 STERLING CENTER ; j L MPS FACTORY OUTL13T ti s MARKETt , � BEER & WINE 5 a 1 , •17422-17438 , •1'rtaT•�+1T eJT P1..�6�IG aJJMe�Rs )) -ww'r_ - ,r-•.•R si.�r`�i..�:�i%•�^�.'Y.it:" '.:�.,�� _ .,.'►.. i• � �1 �'•:�I � 1 � 3 JI GIJ �' wATIOI� �tJ►! �q �I-o w • ��t.E �� IN�tGiz 1!-ZUt'(It�.'•(P� �I.IME?�(•r ti16�� L� . 0 •�1'HPf IDS EacTRttt�D P•WI-f INUt-1 G.�SINt;T�p�lhil'�p CFF WM1T�. pogTt�•O T AJ—UHINut, r� �v �c • mm�ta��/uG AgGT►c.. W �o .(,jaXOM rp4M244,ATM AAAJHINUN a.T6v +' • 04TE*4M Iu.UtilMAMa4 11E ecru r46.•40H OUlTRM ft.O�.ST' �/� Wu► A �ToaC r1a�tiJTsGc 1"'�+.+TOG� 'r•lao►.rT-"- (I',1,� fit I •mi.. 751(wu+�.) IJs.O.d@r'1o��7 w11J11••1 7aA(r,�.M 7s.t CN.��t) ##��il'' • �Y,�yr•ral.a7� . �� • I s1:Ei�� --. ----� -----J -#I- c�a)II--r�I1Ja. �►-a��.s.Tlol--� +�Yr , 1 � � � r , o oQ 715Z(M.s%.) or V • RI ficTA-IwJ=9I¢ L • I I T� I 1 .....,..-..—...-........ �rJ-r®QlolQ lu—�JMII-�PT�O ws►�.�. a161-J •� V/•/VI.��.w..wr•��•1r�IOC � I A rI1n� I I • � '.�Uf1"ILZIsCi ,M.�GK 10 /►1-�OIZaO•MM1YA,Jt7MLC s�UMIP-ISM �•�r••I1JfiT, �1 104 rim-GM�/Y-W'{M pv,MJVIGa/�CCfia '(1�L.O�M►-O �0.�.\.a-.Y�TO 0 1 TI-/ tro1.A6/•� Q O F��1J17�G e:MIJO /-Ir.•�•�1^� _ i+a+.�a�r/�J�•� Td 0�t?-6'►+IaH.LrJo'T�-1 yr 4p1rJ�Ta _.�� 1-�T � � 1 _m•�a+4=��sl�r� 73JC T �mHo-� w101►-+.s� �s�I.J aT+� .wJaT �� /� . ---�T�Ptao /-�oAclz,oe•JT..u_ +w+lam vsicTlydu� ocie+z Tf�►-1.►w�T a y� 1 aTaoa !"�oPJT L.�a.►�►'�oLo. 1-IIGH coeaUa.MJT .v,.e.�.�eRi��.�wJT 11.�a1ol� IW3MI►-b71ou ow.+ - N..aTao�a a►�p� �pte 1 uG►-ITI� • Q CA�I1J>•T /"Ai1.1T G�oi+aD- O.GF><+a lmsaepJzd� 1-r.T^Iti�na orJV`eao �,... ��-TGJ►1•JT' .weY �+-� aJY �014, db T ONd.IG' T ATTACHMENT NO, 5 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 93-11: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because adequate signage is not provided by Planned Sign Program No. 91-7. 2 . The proposed pole signs do not adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs are not excessive in sign height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. 3 . The proposed signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs because the signs are not excessive in height, are located on 80 feet of frontage and because the signs are compatible with proposed and approved signs in the area. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO., 93-11: 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan and sign elevation dated August 19, 1993 . 2. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. 3 . Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner's representative. 4 . There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking- lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the City and landlord's approval. 5. In the event Sterling Center is remodeled, reconstructd, renovated or . any alterations to the shopping center are proposed, all proposed signs for the shopping center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board for compliance with the master planned sign program prior to issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy. 6. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign program No. 91=7 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 93-11 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance code occurs. (7485d-5) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI& p- a&4r� CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Honorable Mayor& Members of City ouncil From: Jim Silva, City Counci[Memder Date: December 17, 1993 Subject: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The applicant is the Sterling Center located at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. on the east side of Beach Blvd. approximately 200 feet. north of Slater Avenue. Because of our desire to retain business in Huntington Beach and given the current condition of the economy, I believe the request for Special Sign Permit 93-11 warrants our consideration. xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator �Ci-4 rn 2 �rn U m C W CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Honorable Mayor& Members of City Council From: Jim SiCva, City CounciCmember/11 Date: December 17, 1993 Subject: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 93-11 Please note that I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 93-11. The applicant is the Sterling Center located at 17422-17438 Beach Blvd. (on the east side of Beach Blvd. approximately 200 feet. north of Slater Avenue. Because of our desire to retain business in Huntington Beach and given the current condition of the economy, I believe the request for Special Sign Permit 93-11 warrants our consideration. xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator