Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-12-09 ~' II - ~' ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION l\ffiETING AGENDAorDECEMBER9,1~2 7.30 P.M. * CIty Council Chambers 211 EIghth Street, Seal Beach, CA I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ll. ROLL CALL ill. CONSENT CALENDAR IV. I {~-d :"';., ~ ~r- { {!Ie), _ , ~ - r . \ r ;. \ 1. Minutes of November 18, 1992 2. Minor Plan Review #92-43 Address: 215 & 215% 17th Street Applicants: Peter & Jean Mason Property Owners: Peter & Jean Mason Request: Construction of a two-story structure which will join two separate units. Resolution: #92-76 SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Cancellation of December 23, 1992 meeting. 4. Signing of Resolutions from November 18th meeting: Reso. No. Address ~......p (r 'i \'/i -I' '. ( tlr 92-63 92-46 92-67 92-68 92-69 92-70 92-71 92-72 92-73 117 Main , 1300 PCB~, 111 Main , A-tt1i Surfside 32S( 16th St. 25~~) 6th St. 254 1~~~ St. 404 ; C!>cean 117 4th St. Item . " ~., <S~~ Grottol ~C . ~ Mo~WOpen ~ ~ 'Clancy's/AB~. Ii' I .. 'f... . .CRAS ~-: CRAS ... :1 CRAS eRAS , :,C~S r.~S . - ."1 " 1 ~'.... I' , , :. t ,1'& t. ~'F it ~!- " Final Draft for Consideration of>Proposed City council ,Policy Statement # : Stan~rd conditions for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses. - ~, ~ote; CoDtinue4 fti)P1Jt..tS-!n meeting . 5. r. , -. , Plge 2 - Seal Beach P\.ummg Conmuaa1on Agenda · I>cccmb<< 9, 1992 v. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Height Variation #92-44 Address: 1605 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Melinda P. Sharp Property Owners: James & Melinda Sharp Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-80 7. Height Variation #92-45 Address: 1514 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Ernest E. Van Dorn Property Owner: Ernest E. Van Dorn Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-79 8. Height Variation #92-46 Address: 1607 Ocean A venue Applicant: Enrique H. Becerra Property Owner: Enrique H. Becerra Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-81 9. Height Variation #92-47 Address: 1514 Marine Avenue Applicant: Michael J. Olson Property Owner: Michael J. Olson Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-78 10. Conditional Use Pennit #91-17 Continued from 11..18-'2 meeting" Operation: Pasta Grotto Address: 117 Main Street Applicants: Vincenzo Ricci & Doug Maris Property Owner: Edward Hogard Request: Indermite Extension of CUP and Modification of Hours Resolution: #92-63 ~ . I "e 3 - Seal Beach PIannmg Cnmm........ Aacada · Deecmber 9, 1992 11. Conditional Use Permit #92-10 Coodnued from It-l8-!U meeting., Operation: Irisher Address: 121 Main Street Applicants: Robert & Wilma Campregher Property Owner: Mark R. Johnson Request: After-the-fact CUP for ABC license to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits. Resolution: #92-66 ~ote: Continue tQ January 6j 1993 12. Conditional Use Permit #90-12 Operation: Restaurant Bonadonna Address: SOO Pacific Coast H wy. Applicant: David Bonadonna Property Owner: Jim Watson Request: Indefinite extension of CUP for an on-sale general liquor license. Resolution: #92-75 13. Conditional Use Permit #92-21 Operation: Main Street Deli Address: 303/305 Main Street Applicant: Josiane Tafani Property Owner: Thomas E. Hyams Request: Transfer an on-sale beer and wine license with ownership transfer. Resolution: #92-77 14. Conditional Use Permit #92-12, Variance #92-2 Negative Declaration #92-5 Address: Base of Water Tower @ 1 Anderson Street (Vacant lot has not been assigned an address) Applicant: Jeff Overeem Property Owner: Jeff Overeem Request: To constmct a quick lube/carwash on subject property. Resolutions: #92-64/Carwash #92-65IDrive Aisle ~ - , Page 4 - Sea1 Beach PIaDnmg CammsaIOll Agmda · Dcctmber 9, 1992 ORAL COM:MUNITCA nONS STAFF CONCERNS 1. Memo/CUP #92-1, Tootsie's Restaurant, 909 Ocean Avenue COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT to JANUARY 6.1993 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1992 was called to order by Vice Chairman Dahlman at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Dahlman commissioners Law, Sharp Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Chairman Fife Commissioner Orsini Lee Whittenberg, Director Without Commission objection, Vice Chairman Dahlman excused the absences of Chairman Fife and Commissioner Orsini. Mr. Colantuono indicated that the City's municipal Code, which creates and authorizes the Planning Commission, requires that applications for land use approvals be approved by a majority of the entire membership of the Planning Commission. He read: "Section 17-4 (d). Unless a different vote is required by the City Charter, or by an applicable provision of State law, no application for consideration before the Planning Commission shall be approved by less than an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership of the Planning Commission". Three afirmative votes are needed to approve any application. It applies only to applications and not to minutes, tabling or continuing matters, administrative actions. Vice Chairman Dahlman asked if the Commission failed to approve an application because they did not have the required three votes, does that deny the application? Mr. Colantuono said yes. The failure to take an action is the failure to grant what the applicant wants. He recommended that if an application cannot be approved by 3 - 0 the Commission could take an action by a 2 - 1 vote and set it for the next Commission meeting. . . . Page 2 - PIannm& ComnusSIOIl Mmutes of December 9, 1992 Commissioner Sharp asked how many issues on this calendar would be affected? Mr. Colantuono said almost all on the agenda. Vice Chairman Dahlman indicated the Commission would move ahead with the agenda and provide people the opportunity to reschedule as appropriate. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of November 18, 1992 Planning commission Minutes MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Minutes of November 18, 1992 with the following corrections: Page 3, paragraph 2, delete "to" before "continue". Page 13, paragraph 2, add "... additional Notice of the " before "Public Hearing". Page 21, paragraph 3, delete "wants to know more", replace with "knows". Page 22, paragraph 4, replace last phrase with "I have never said that this particular use should not be exempt" he said. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, Orsini *** 2. Minor Plan Review #92-43 215/215\ 17th Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Peter and Jean Mason, want to add approximately 245 square feet to both the one-story front unit and the second story rear unit of their legal non-conforming duplex. They are proposing to enclose an open patio between the two units and construct a roof deck of approximately 350 square feet over each unit. It will remain as two units. The applicants have a 22' sailboat on a trailer; this will not fit in their garage. It must be removed from the property to allow unobstructed access to the garages. Commission Comments The applicants were not present. . . . Page 3 - Plannmg Comnu88100 Mmutes of December 9, 1992 The Commissioners reviewed the plans. They were concerned the proposed hallway/study area be made more open so it could not constitute another bedroom. This hallway is the only access to the master bedroom. The Commission did not want to disturb the definition of "bedroom". It was indicated that the applicants are not converting the two units to one unit, thus making the property more conforming. Therefore, they felt the applicants should adhere to the established definition of "bedroom". Staff suggested the existing exterior wall which separates the new master bedroom from the old bedroom be removed. The Commission discussed various configurations and degrees of openness. Staff inspection revealed the garage was being used in conjunction with the applicants'approved day care facility. They noted the condition that old electrical system be brought to Code standards is an important safety concern. The heating system is adequate but needs seismic tie downs. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review #92-43, through the adoption of Resolution No. 92-76, subject to the five conditions stated in the staff report plus a sixth condition to read: 6. There shall be a non-obstructed accessway between the proposed master bedroom and the existing bedroom of at least six (6') feet in width. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Law, Sharp, Dahlman Fife, Orsini This case has been decided and it is the intention of the Commissioners to consider a resolution for this issue later in the meeting. The purpose for this is to avoid a six week delay between this date and the next meeting on January 6, 1993. *** 3. Cancellation of December 23, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to cancel the December 23, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: ABSENT: Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, orsini vice Chairman Dahlman, indicating staff will be on a non-paid furlough the week of December 21 - 25, thanked the City employees for pitching in during the City's budget crisis. *** . . . Page 4 - Plannmg CoouwSSIOO Mmu1c8 of December 9, 1992 4. Consideration of Resolutions from November 18, 1992 Planning commission meeting. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the following resolutions from items on previous agendas: Reso. No. Address Item 92-46 1300 PCR Mobil/2-6 AM 92-67 111 Main Clancy's/ABC 92-68 A-l09 Surfside CRAS 92-69 325 16th st. CRAS 92-70 252 16th st. CRAS 92-71 254 16th st. CRAS 92-72 404 Ocean CRAS 92-73 117 4th st. CRAS Regarding Resolution No. 92-67, the word "no" must be inserted at Condition #19, to read "There shall be no dumping of trash between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.... Vice Chairman Dahlman urged staff to avoid using the words "no" and "not.. in Resolutions. The following resolution will be considered at this meeting: Reso. No. 92-63 Address 117 Main Item Pasta Grotto/ABC MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, Orsini *** 5. Final Draft for Consideration of Proposed City council Policy statement # : Standard Conditions for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses. staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the policy statement. [Policy statement on file in the Planning Department]. This item has been continued from the November 18, 1992. Staff researched the issue of the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the sale of motor vehicle fuels and this policy statement includes the specific state conditions; this affects Condition #29. These are minimum state standards and the City may impose additional conditions. . . . Page 5 - PJannmg C0IWIU88101l MlI1utcs of December 9. 1992 Commission Comments commissioner Sharp indicated this policy statement is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council; the Council will have the final authority. There will be a Public Hearing at the Council level. Vice Chairman Dahlman said he would fight any issue in which a gasoline station could sell alcohol. He objected to the language in Condition #29(B) "No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands", indicating this could lead to the interpretation that alcohol could be sold in conjunction with gasoline stations. He asked Mr. Curtis if there were any gasoline stations in the City that could benefit from this? Mr. Curtis said there are none, this falls more under a gasoline station or mini- market than it would a grocery market. The City Code says the only thing you're allowed to sell at gasoline service stations is incidental motorist services and supplies. Since alcoholic beverages cannot be consumed by motorists, it is staff's position that alcoholic beverages are not incidental motorist services and supplies and are therefore prohibited from sale at gasoline selling places in the City of Seal Beach. If the City was writing a new municipal Code today, it could not have language restricting the sale of alcohol at gasoline service stations. Our Code section was in effect before 1988 and we are allowed to continue to enforce this. Mr. Colantuono said the State has the power to preempt any and all local regulations regarding licensed alcohol sales. The 33rd amendment to the United States Constitution, which repealed prohibition, conferred the power to control alcohol sales on the States. Seal Beach is a Charter city and is exempt from certain regulations. The city has an ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and other commodities at gas stations. And because that ordinance is sufficiently old, the legislature allows the City to continue to enforce it. The City Attorney's Office would advise the City not to tinker with that ordinance. Mr. Colantuono said he had not discussed this issue with the Planning Director but there are no gas stations in town that can sell alcohol and there are not going to be any, then Condition #29 would seem moot and could be deleted. This package could be recommended to the City Council without those conditions. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to forward this proposed City council policy Statement re standard conditions of Approval for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses to the City Council with a memo that the City Attorney's Office should examine these conditions and have further discussions as to whether Condition #29 should be included at the City Council level. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, Orsini Page 6 - P1anmog COOll1118BIOll Mmutes of December 9, 1992 . Tom Charara - Seal Beach Businessmen's Association said this is not for gasoline service stations, it's intended for restaurants that sell alcohol. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS with the Commission's consent, the following agenda items were considered together: 6. Height variation #92-44 Address: 1605 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Melinda P. Sharp Property Owners: James' Melinda Sharp Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-80 7. Height Variation #92-45 Address: 1514 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Ernest E. Van Dorn Property Owner: Ernest E. Van Dorn Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-79 . 8. Height Variation #92-46 Address: 1607 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Enrique H. Becerra Property Owner: Enrique H. Becerra Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-81 9. Height Variation #92-47 Address: 1514 Marine Avenue Applicant: Michael J. Olson Property Owner: Michael J. Olson Request: CRAS approval Resolution #: 92-78 Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff reports. [Staff reports on file in the Planning Department]. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp clarified that James and Melissa Sharp are not his relatives and he doesn't know them. Therefore, he does not have conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Dahlman expressed concern on the lack of permits and plans, stating that what is permitted by the Planning Commission is what is actually built. Commissioner Sharp said the older . structure's permits and plans may be in Orange County files, not . . . Page 7 - PIannmg COII1JIllBSIOO MInutes of December 9. 1992 City files. Mr. curtis said the City has not been able to afford to microfilm many of its plans and permits, therefore, they are not easily accessible. The Building Department will be advised the plans are missing and perhaps they can get them from the developer. Public Hearinq No applicants were present and no one in the audience wished to speak for or against these applications. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. curtis read a (written) telephone message from Barbara Antoci expressing her view that when something has been constructed according to the existing Code provisions it should not be required to come before the city for further approval, it should be automatically approved. [Attached] MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the following: 6. Height Variation #92-44 Address: 1605 Ocean Avenue Resolution #: 92-80 7. Height Variation #92-45 Address: 1514 Ocean Avenue Resolution #: 92-79 8. Height Variation #92-46 Address: 1607 Ocean Avenue Resolution #: 92-81 9. Height Variation #92-47 Address: 1514 Marine Avenue Resolution #: 92-78 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, Orsini *** 10. Conditional Use Permit #91-17 117 Main Street * Pasta Grotto staff Report Mrs. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Vincenzo and Antonia Ricci, are requesting an indefinite extension of CUP #91-17, an existing on-sale beer and wine license, and modification of their hours to stay open to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. . . . Page 8 - PIannmg CoolDUSSIOO Mmutes of December 9, 1992 commission Comments There were no Commission comments. Public Hearinq Antonia Ricci * 117 Main st., Seal Beach * Pasta Grotto Mrs. Ricci introduced herself as an owner of Pasta Grotto restaurant and spoke in favor this application. She said they are requesting the additional hour on Friday and saturday nights to accommodate the occasional late diner. They do not want him/her to rush to finish a bottle of wine or for them to have to remove the wine from the table. Tom Charara * Seal Beach Businessmen's Association Mr. Charara spoke in favor of this application. He stated Pasta Grotto restaurant is a fine restaurant and is a definite addition to the city. He felt it would be a good idea to have a fine restaurant open a little later on Main street. David Rosenman * rNo address qivenl, Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said the City's in-lieu parking is inadequate because the fees don't fund mitigation measures. The City's Land Use Element is not approved by the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Curtis said Pasta Grotto is grandfathered in, it's not in the in-lieu program. The Commission imposed parking mitigation fees on Pasta Grotto however. LeRoy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach Mr. Brown showed the Commission a newspaper article from the Orange County Register of November 29, 1992. He objected to the indefinite extension of the on-sale license because 25% of the City's police action takes place on Main Street. He felt Pasta Grotto has not been in business very long and once granted, the City would have no further control. Vice Chairman Dahlman indicated the number of conditions of approval is tripling for CUPs. Mr. Curtis clarified an indefinite extension, saying it grants an extension until such a time as the Planning Commission or City Councilor staff feels there is a problem which needs to be addressed. At that point, a hearing before the Commission would be scheduled. Mr. Brown said it would take a lot more force to get a hearing than not to grant the indefinite extension. Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf, Seal Beach Mr. Shanks spoke in opposition, saying in theory there is nothing wrong with this but again, in practice, there is. When one establishment gets an extension of hours then, to be fair, other similar establishments must get extended hours. He said matters get incrementally approved without any City general policy. He Page 9 - PIannmg ComousSIOI1 Mmutes of December 9, 1992 . urged the Planning Commission to delay this indefinite extension until a general policy for liquor selling establishments is established. vice Chairman Dahlman asked that the November 29, 1992 Orange County Register newspaper article be entered for the Record. [Attached] . David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman asked Mr. Colantuono why a hold harmless condition, similar to SeaSide Grill and Papillon, was not placed as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Colantuono said the City Attorney's Office prepared the resolutions for SeaSide Grill and restaurant Papillon, staff drafted Pasta Grotto's resolution. Mr. Rosenman asked Mr. Colantuono if he would obj ect to the hold harmless condition being added to Pasta Grotto. Mr. Colantuono said his legal advise would be there is no object but, it is a policy question. Mr. Colantuono said an indemnity is only worth as much money as the person who provides it. Requir ing indemnity clauses is useful because it means that if somebody has to pay legal fees, you're second in line. But if you're behind a pauper, it does very little good to be second in line. . Rebuttal * Mrs. Ricci * Pasta Grotto Mrs. Ricci said Pasta Grotto was not going to post closing time as 11:00 p.m., they were going to leave it posted at 10:00 p.m. They are requesting the additional hour to accommodate late diners; ABC allows them to 11:00 p.m.. They don't want to have to remove a bottle of wine at 10:00 p.m.. Vice Chairman Dahlman said for two years the beer and wine licenses, except for SeaSide Grill, were given the same hours, 10:00 p.m. week-days and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Tom Charara * Seal Beach Businessmen's Association Mr. Charara said he didn't understand the obj ections from the audience. He said the applicant was requesting the additional hour for food service. If anybody wants to drink, they know where the drinking establishments are on Main Street. They're not going to go to Pasta Grotto and get drunk. Pasta Grotto is a fine dining establishment. It's not fair, when certain establishments are open to 2:00 a.m. selling hard liquor and a fine dining establishment is asking to extend for one extra hour to 11:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Colantuono made a technical suggestion. The 25th condition reads "The applicant remains bound by the conditions of Resolution No. 1654, regarding CUP #91-17". He suggested adding the phrase ", . except in so far as those conditions are amended by this approval". . . . Page 10 - Plmuung Comnu881011 MInutes of December 9, 1992 Before the vote, Vice Chairman Dahlman said many of the concerns of those who spoke in opposition to this application are concerns about the whole map (Orange County Register article of November 29, 1992) but Pasta Grotto is not the problem. Mrs. Ricci is asking for the same treatment that all other applicants have received in the last two years. She is not asking for, nor demanding, 1:00 a.m. "I'm going to support this application". commissioner Sharp, indicating the Orange County Register article had been mentioned, said everyone has read newspaper articles and everyone knows you can't always believe everything you read in a newspaper. There was a participant corne before the Planning Commission and described the slime and degradation that goes on in Seal Beach when there's a parade. This is not true. He said he has attended several of those parades, walked the length of Main Street and never saw a finer conducted parade or a finer bunch of people. He saw no disorderly conduct. It's outlandish to have something like that quoted when it's not true. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #91-17, subject to twenty-six (26) conditions set forth in the staff report, with the phrase "except in so far as those conditions are amended by this approval" at condition #25 and with a 27th condition/indemnity clause, by the approval of Resolution No. 92-63. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, orsini *** 11. Conditional Use Permit #92-10 121 Main Street * Irisher Mr. Curtis said the applicants have requested to confer with Planning Department staff and the City Attorney's Office regarding questions they have about the entire process of them having to obtain a CUP. To allow that meeting to take place, staff has requested this item be continued to the January 6, 1993. Vice Chairman Dahlman took an informal poll on how many persons came to speak to this issue. No one wished to speak on this item. Mr. Colantuono asked the Minutes reflect the fact that the continuance is at the request of the applicant. Public Hearinq The Public Hearing was opened to entertain a motion to continue. . . . Page 11 - PIannmg CommlSBlOII Mmule8 of December 9, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to continue Conditional Use Permit #92-10, at the applicant's consent, to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1993. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, Orsini *** RECESS The Commission recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 12. Conditional Use Permit #90-12 500 Pacific Coast Highway * Restaurant Bonadonna staff Report Mrs. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, David Bonadonna, J.S requesting an indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #90-12 for an existing on-sale general liquor license. Commission Comments There were no Commission comments. Public Hearinq The applicant was not present and no one wished to speak in favor of or against this application; the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #90-12, by the adoption of Resolution No. 92-75, indefinitely extending an existing on-sale general liquor license for the restaurant Bonadonna. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, Orsini *** 13. Conditional Use Permit #92-21 303/305 Main Street Staff Report Mrs. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Josiane Tafani, requests a new CUP for the transfer of an on-sale beer and wine license at 303/305 Main street in conjunction with the transfer of ownership of an existing restaurant. Page 12 - PIanrnng ComnuSSIOIl Mmutes of December 9, 1992 . commission Comments Vice Chairman Dahlman asked if staff would recommend sticking with the present hours of operation for CUP #91-7, which are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily or following the requested hours from 6:00 am to 11: 00 p.m. Staff indicated the Notice did not include modification of hours. Staff did recommend review at six months due to a new owner. Public Hearinq Tom Charara * 303/305 Main Street. Seal Beach Mr. Charara, former owner of Main Street Deli, presented a Power of Attorney from the new owner, Josiane Tafani. He indicated the name of the restaurant will be Main Street Cafe and Grilli a fictitious name statement ran in the News Enterprise. . The requested hours are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. but she asked for those hours for saleability of the business. Regarding condition #6, Mr. Charara objected to the wording "Interior displays of alcoholic beverages which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition". He said any restaurant which has a neon alcoholic beverage sign will be in violation of this rule. No matter how the sign is covered, it could be said that it is visible. He asked for removal of this wording. Regarding condition # 16, Mr. Charara obj ected to the wording "There shall be no dumping of trash and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m." Mr. Charara said it is a health hazard to let trash to sit in the restaurant over night. Vice Chairman Dahlman said this is the first time this condition has been challenged. Mr. Charara said his dumping trash would not be noisy because his trash bin is in the back. Regarding condition #19, Mr. Charara objected to the wording "... and none shall be sold as take-out". He stated his ABC license is on-sale with off-sale privileges. He would like different wording to reflect that he can sell beer and wine to go. Staff could re- Notice this Public Hearing in the event this is an on-sale and off- sale ABC license. . Regarding condition #23, Mr. Charara object to the wording "There shall be appropriate posting of signs both inside and outside the licensed premises indicating that drinking outside the licensed premises is prohibited by law". He asked where this could be posted outside the Main Street Deli? On the telephone pole or the palm tree? Mr. Curtis said it would be on the rear walls of the building, adjacent to the alley or in the exterior patio area or the front window area. Mr. Charara said the building's owner has told Mr. Charara not to touch the patio wall. . . . Page 13 - PIannmg ComouSSIlXl MInutes of December 9, 1992 Commissioner Sharp said if Mr. Charara is talking about an off-sale license then there would be complete conflict all through this issue. Therefore, it should be postponed, re-Noticed, and a report come back for an on-sale, off-sale issue. He indicated some of the conditions would not apply if it were an off-sale license. Vice Chairman Dahlman agreed. Mr. Charara said his ABC license expires at the end of December and Ms. Tafani's license must commence at the beginning of January and that's impossible if she doesn't have a CUP. Mr. Colantuono said the Commission could continue the Public Hearing and grant the permit that staff Noticed, a permit to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. If there are three votes to do that, Mr. Charara and Ms. Tafani will have the right to maintain the business and sell alcohol for on-premise consumption. If the applicant wants to sell alcohol for off- premise consumption, they would need to come back and amend the CUP. That hearing could be set tonight, based on the existing staff report, and there wouldn't have to be a new application. All the issues which are driven by their different licensure be addressed again. Mr. Charara asked if he would be able to meet with Planning Department staff and discuss his conditions? Mr. Curtis said yes. Regarding condition #25, Mr. Charara objected to the wording" ... a premise employee shall be in attendance and maintain continuous supervision at all times [emphasis added] ...". He said the restaurant has employees on the premises at all time and the people on the patio are within view but not in view 100% of the time. commissioner Sharp said the interpretation is that as long as there is someone serving and supervising, even if they make a trip to the kitchen, that is still maintaining vigil. The other restaurant having this situation was Baja Bills, a fast food restaurant. Mr. Curtis said staff would not require an employee to be standing over the tables and watch at all times, but the City wants the condition to be reasonably met, with some supervision at all times. Regarding condition #29, Mr. Charara obj ected to ".. no banner advertising on the outside of the building". Commissioner Sharp said he could obtain a special permit for a banner. Regarding condition #16, the word "no" must be inserted before "dumping". David Rosenman * r No address qivenl. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman spoke in opposition, stating the staff report supports the Orange County newspaper article on over concentration of ABC licenses. He indicated the Planning Commission does have the option to deny a new CUP for this property. Mr. Curtis said this is an option. Mr. Rosenman said Walt's Wharf modified their trash and glass dumping practices since this issue has been brought up. He asked the Commission to clearly state that, if approved, this is clearly an interim and not necessarily renewable extension. He said he felt this was not receiving a full hearing and was aware of . . . Page 14 - PIannmg COOUWSSlOO Mmutes of December 9, 1992 people who would speak to this issue but are unable to attend due to the holidays. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Colantuono suggested Condition #27 be changed to include "The present enclosure, if adequately maintained, shall satisfy this condition. Mr. Colantuono noted, for the Record, that Mr. Charara has presented a Power of Attorney in fact, executed by Ms. Tafani on October 29, 1992 and properly notarized. Because Ms. Tafani is present and has not disclaimed this Power of Attorney, he interprets it to be effective. This is an original and Mr. Colantuono returned it to Mr. Charara. Mr. Colantuono corrected Mr. curtis' response to Mr. Rosenman's comments. Mr. Colantuono's advice would be that when considering a CUP solely because the property is changing hands, you ought not to terminate or revoke the CUP in the absence of a basis to determine that the use is being operated in a manner inconsistent with the neighborhood, causing a public nuisance or some similar standard. A transfer, in itself, is not generally a defensible basis to revoke a CUP. Vice Chairman Dahlman said Mr. Rosenman was most likely indicating that an overconcentration of licenses exists. Mr. Colantuono said that analysis is only applicable to newly issued licenses. If Ms. Tafani is getting a new ABC license, rather than a transfer of this license, then it is possible to object to the issuance of the license on the basis of over concentration. And the City could deny a CUP to Ms. Tafani for a new use. In terms of transferring the existing CUP, there may not be a basis to refuse to transfer the existing CUP. The CUP is a property right and when somebody proposes to sell their property we can't prevent them from doing that absent a police power basis to do so. The City Attorney's Office is continuing to study this matter and they expect to provide some written advice to the Planning Commission on these matters. The Planning Commission should not concern itself with whether the ABC transfers the license but rather on whether the Planning Commission wishes to transfer the CUP, the right to operate this business under the City's zoning ordinance. Commissioner Sharp, referencing Condition #16, said that if this restaurant closes at 10:00 p.m. he should be able to dump his trash after cleaning up. Therefore, he recommended the dumping time to 11:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Dahlman disagreed, saying dumping of trash wakes up nearby residents. Vice Chairman Dahlman suggested the restaurant dump their trash regularly up until 10:00 p.m. and then place any remaining trash in a plastic can with lids, filling them inside the restaurant, and then setting them outside the back door for emptying after 7:00 a.m. Mr. curtis said it is a new . . . Page 15 - PJannmg CommISSIon Mmulcs of December 9, 1992 standard condition and most likely has been placed on recent approvals. Commissioner Law said the biggest complaint is the noise from emptying bottles. Vice Chairman Dahlman referenced Resolution No. 92-67, approved earlier tonight with a 3 - 0 - 2 vote, indicated Condition #13 said there will be no dumping of trash between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Sharp said he missed that point or would have suggested a later dumping hour. Vice Chairman Dahlman said he thought this condition was put in the standard conditions in an effort to appease the residents who see growth of the businesses in their back yards and they are experiencing harmful environmental effects. The Planning commission is attempting to mitigate that, without placing an undue burden on either the resident or the business owner; it requires some sacrifice on both parts. Commissioner Law said her sole objection to the hours is the noise it creates for nearby neighbors. Tom Charara * Main Street Deli Mr. Charara said he objected to the condition on dumping of trash because "I don't want to have Mr. Rosenman standing at my door at 10: 01 p.m. watching me with a trash can full of nothing but perishables and making a note of it, and coming before the Council saying he's in violation. I don't make noise. I haven't had a single complaint from my neighbors. I value my neighbors. I don't violate any laws ...". Mr. Charara said he doesn't have any back door to set a trash can outside of, his dumpster is in the back and is enclosed. The Health Department would cite him for this. The health hazard from leaving trash inside a business is much more dangerous than taking it out and dumping the trash. He said he recycles the glass. Vice Chairman Dahlman said he could see the problem and said "There must be some way we can solve this without just simply ignoring the wishes of the residents and going 100% the way the businessmen want to go. I think we need get together and solve the problem". Mr. Charara said "I really think we're really trying to bend forward and backward for the residents and you're ignoring ... the Planning Commission and the Council is ignoring the business needs in this town ... I'm speaking on behalf of all the businesses in this town. I really think you ought to look at what you're doing and what you're driving at because there are businesses leaving this town simply because of the attitude of the Planning Commission, the attitude of the residents toward the businesses. Most of the residents, a lot of them, don't benefit Main street and they have some sort of division against Main street ... I don't understand why. Without the businesses on Main Street the City cannot exist". Vice Chairman Dahlman replied "One of the reasons non-alcohol selling businesses are having a hard time may be because there are too many alcohol-selling businesses". Mr. Charara disagreed, saying "Main Street was dead at 7: 00 p.m. tonight". Page 16 - Plannmg COOlnllSSIOIl MInutes of December 9. 1992 . Commissioner Sharp withdrew his objection to Condition #16, noting the hardship at 10:00 p.m. curfew on trash dumping would make, it would put this application in a bind if they don't get a unanimous vote tonight, and if the applicant comes before the Commission again Condition #16 can be reconsidered. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-21, through the adoption of Resolution No. 92-77, with the thirty (30) conditions as outlined in the staff report, and with the following changes to Conditions of Approval: #16. Add the word "no" to read ..there shall be no dumping of trash ...... #27. Add this phrase at the end: "The present enclosure, if adequately maintained, shall satisfy this condition". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, Orsini . 14. Variance #92-2 Conditional Use Permit #92-12 Negative Declaration #92-5 Location: Orange County Assessor's Parcel #178-502-46 [Lot adjacent to water Tower/Anderson street] Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Jeff Overeem, is proposing to construct a quick lube/car wash on a currently vacant lot located at the base of the Water Tower residence which is located at 1 Anderson Street. The applicant is proposing to provide less than the required drive aisle for the proposed one-way drive aisle and less than the required parking for a proposed second story office. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked if there are any other properties "like" this property? Mr. curtis replied yes. Any property that is zoned commercially that can have office space built on it and is required to provide "X" amount of parking spaces for the amount of office space that they provide. This building could provide a smaller office and could provide the required parking. '. Commissioner Sharp asked if the applicant was aware of all these problems before the report was presented to the Commission? Mr. Curtis said to some extent Mr. Overeem was aware. He did receive the proposed Negative Declaration. He received this staff report which was sent out at the end of last week. Mainly, they spent most of their time discussing the proposed residential unit and . . . Page 17 - P1annmg ComnuSSJOII Mmutes of December 9, 1992 means of having it comply with what neighbors feel would be appropriate for the neighborhood. To a large extent these issues were not discussed with the applicant. Vice Chairman Dahlman said approval of this application requires a unanimous vote of the three Commissioners present. Given what Mr. curtis has stated, regarding the necessity for re-Notice and re- Hearing and the fact that two Commissioners are absent, if the Commission is going to consider an issue there should be a full panel of Commissioners. commissioner Sharp agreed. Mr. Colantuono recommended the Commission open the Public Hearing solely for the purpose of continuing it to the January 6, 1993. Public Hearinq Vice Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing and asked the audience if there was anyone present who cannot attend in the future and would like to speak tonight? The following persons spoke: George Armstronq * rNo address qivenl Huntinqton Beach. CA Mr. Armstrong said he will be out of the country until late January. He owns the property adjacent to Mr. Overeem's property. He agreed to give Mr. Overeem an ingress / egress easement. He adamantly opposed residential homes or condominiums adjacent to the two businesses and/or a zoning change. He suggested the Public Hearing be continued to allow Mr. Overeem to discuss several concerns with the staff. Commissioner Sharp said staff had questions about the right-of-way Mr. Armstrong was giving in order for Mr. Overeem to build. If this is true, staff should ask their questions now and Mr. Armstrong should give his answers now. Mr. Curtis said staff has concerns about the boat sales operation opening on the property is required to provide five on-site parking spaces. Three or four are provided. Staff's concern is that if the ingress/egress easement is deeded that would take up the remainder of the property where the business is carried out at this time. Mr. Armstrong replied the boat operation is on a month-to-month lease and they are fully aware Mr. Overeem's development may result in an easement which may effect their business. If that happens they will have to meet those requirements or the business will have to be changed. commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Armstrong if the ingress/egress would be the area the boat business uses for their parking? Mr. Curtis said it would be the area they currently use for their display area. To provide the five required parking spaces and to provide the ingress/egress it would take about 50% or more of their existing display area. Commissioner Sharp asked if the ingress/egress area would interfere with the boat business then they will have to move? Mr. Anderson Page 18 - P1annmg Conun.88100 MInutes of December 9, 1992 . said yes and the boat place is aware this might occur. Mr. Armstrong said he wasn't going against the neighborhood but was trying to do something to preserve the uniqueness of the Water Tower. Commissioner Sharp expressed concerns on limiting the public testimony tonight. Mr. Colantuono said the Commission has the discretion to either continue tonight's Public Hearing as long as it takes all testimony or to cut off the public testimony right now. The people in the audience and the applicant are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It is not unreasonable to provide that opportunity on January 6, 1993. The Commission determined to receive all testimony. Jeff Overeem * rNo address qivenl * Santa Barbara. CA Mr. Overeem introduced himself as the applicant. He stated he received his staff report by express mail on December 8, 1992. He stated he had no idea that staff was going to recommend against approval. He said "I understood that I was going after a Variance and a CUP through the application but I did not know they were going to recommend denying it until yesterday". . Siqnaqe. [Page 3] Mr. Overeem said the staff report was unfairly worded. Regarding signage, the staff report says signage would not be allowed along Pacific Coast Highway with an approved Variance. Mr. Overeem said Mr. Curtis had told him that signage could also be added to where the sign is allowed in the easement. Residential on Three sides. [Page 3]. Mr. Overeem said the staff report says the property is in close proximity to residential uses on three (3) sides but it's really residential on two (2) sides, Noel's restaurant is a commercial use. Mr. Curtis said the staff report is referring to the residential unit above Noel's restaurant and you could argue whether it's a mixed use or not. Impact on Surroundinq Land Uses. [Page 4]. The staff report says the proposed quick lube/car wash will be 27' in height while the Water Tower is 82' in height. Mr. Overeem said the Water Tower does not look straight down at a quick lube, he looks out at the vista, the ocean, therefore he is not being affected as greatly as the staff report relates. . Stacking. [Page 5]. The staff report states staff is concerned with the ability to stack vehicles on the property and the adjacent property. Mr. Overeem says that driving down Pacif ic Coast Highway (PCH) and pass Noel's restaurant, the road widens and there's room for a turning lane if not, there's already a turning lane there. There's a white line drawn at that point. The car wash down the street measures 27' from PCH to the first bay. Mr. Overeem would have 36' from PCH to the first bay. He has 51' of stacking room versus 27' of stacking room. The Commission noted the other car wash is located in Sunset Beach and would be considered under . . . Page 19 - PIannmg COO1Il1JBSIOO Mmules of December 9, 1992 another jurisdiction's zoning provisions. In that 51' he can stack four cars in a row. The theory of a quick lube is you can get your car's oil changed in ten minutes and therefore he didn't think people would stack up to wait fifty minutes for an oil change. They would drive away and return later. Boat/Parkinq Mr. Overeem stated again that the boat business has a month-to-month tenancy. Traffic. [Page 5]. Mr. Overeem said he discussed with Mr. Armstrong that drivers will make a left-hand turn at Anderson Road and then a right-hand turn into the quick lube. There will be no left-hand turns across PCH. Commissioner Sharp said CALTRANS would decide whether there's a left-turn lane. Mr. Curtis said the City could put a request to CALTRANS and they would have to meet; it's ultimately CALTRAN's decision. Mr. Curtis said one of Mr. Armstrong's recommendations would be to reverse the flow of traffic through the property, having it enter from Anderson Street and exiting onto PCH. Commissioner Sharp and Vice Chairman Dahlman advised Mr. Overeem that the Commission had hoped to elicit testimony tonight from persons who could not be present at the January 6th Commission meeting when this item would be on the agenda again. And, many of the items Mr. Overeem was objecting to tonight would probably be corrected with staff in the meantime. Mr. Overeem said he wished to continue testifying. Mr. Overeem said he turned in his initial application about three and a half months ago and there have been continuances and the environmental work that had to be reviewed. He said "But at the same time, I would like to get ... the thing down to where we can at least get it figured out whether it's going to be approved". Commissioner Sharp said he thought Mr. Overeem should have received his staff report sooner than one day prior to the meeting. Mr. Overeem said if he had received this he would have called Mr. Curtis and discussed the fact he thought this was completely out of line. Commissioner Sharp advised Mr. Overeem that the Commission could not discuss their feelings tonight because that would be pre-judging before all the public testimony is received. He said that if Mr. Overeem continues to testify tonight and then repeat the same testimony on January 6th that would be a waste of time. Mr. Overeem said he had driven from Sacramento to attend this meeting and he received the staff report at noon. Mr. Curtis explained the staff reports were finished on Friday, December 4th. They are normally mailed on Friday for receipt on Monday. The Commission's packets are hand-delivered on Fridays. Mr. Overeem's packet was not mailed on Friday but was sent express mail on Monday. Mr. Curtis attempted to reach Mr. Overeem by telephone on Monday so he could FAX the report to him. Mr. Curtis said he was not in the office all last week because he was ill and that's why the staff report was not completed until Friday. For the January 6th Commission meeting staff will meet with the applicant, discuss the issues, and attempt to resolve most Page 20 - PIannmg Coouw881011 MInutes of December 9, 1992 . matters and the applicant will know where staff stands on these issues. Secondly, staff will attempt to get the report to the applicant sooner. However, it is normal for the applicant not to get his packet pertaining to the meeting until the Monday prior to the meeting because they are mailed. RECESS Vice Chairman Dahlman had an emergency telephone call and the meeting was recessed from 10:30 p.m. to 10:35 p.m. Mr. Curtis said the staff report indicated the items under consideration (noise, traffic etc.) do fall under allowable standards. It was indicated in the Negative Declaration and the staff report that these areas of impact are substantially greater than a residential use would have. In that sense the Negative Declaration and the staff report are similar. Mr. Overeem asked Mr. Curtis why he kept referencing the residential aspects of the property when it's zoning is commercial? Mr. curtis said "Because we, as staff, feel that would be the most appropriate use of the property given the surrounding land uses". Vice Chairman Dahlman said that that was staff's opinion and it depends on the Commission's opinion and two Commissioners are absent tonight, therefore this should be saved for January 6th. Mr. Overeem continued to testify. . Traffic. [Page 5]. Mr. Overeem said 144 cars per day (288 vehicle trips per day) is excessive. Mr. Armstrong's detail business was doing 20 cars per day. An good quick lube services 40 cars per day. Sixty cars per day divided becomes five cars per hour. Surfs ide Obstruction The second story office is 44' wide. The houses at the far end of Surfside are single story and they won't have a view anyhow. Parkinq. [Page 6] Regarding the parking requirements for the upstairs office, Mr. Overeem said he spoke with Salvatore Camelia, the owner of Noel's restaurant. Mr. Camelia is willing to work out a shared parking arrangement, where Mr. Overeem grants him parking at night and Mr. Camelia grants parking during the day. If an agreement can't be reached for that large of an office, the office can be reduced in size or it could be turned into a watchman's residence. Vice Chairman Dahlman informed Mr. Overeem the City currently does not authorize shared parking. Mr. Curtis said it could be considered through a Variance, however, the Code doesn't allowed for a mixed use, such as a residence above. . Recommendations. [Page 6]. The staff report says" after considering all relevant testimony, both written and oral, ...". Mr. Overeem said only one person showed up at that last Commission meeting to speak in opposition and one letter in opposition. He said there is not a lot of opposition to this proposed project. . . . Page 21 - PIannmg ComnusSIOO Mmut.es of December 9, 1992 Mr. Curtis explained the term "vehicle trips". He explained the figures staff used are based on survey figures from similar type uses. The figures could vary from site to site. Regarding staff's recommendation for a residential project when the site is zoned commercial, this is strictly a staff recommendation. When approving a CUP, as required for the car wash, the Commission needs to make findings that it is appropriate and will not be detrimental to adjacent land uses. staff feels the proposed commercial project would be significantly more detrimental that residential. Regarding blocking views from Surfside, staff did not feel it was significant. Vice Chairman Dahlman suggested staff compare this proposal with alternative commercial uses rather than with residential uses since the property is zoned commercial. Bob O'Dell * Owner. Water Tower Dr. O'Dell said he would reserve his comments for the January 6th meeting. He is changing jobs and doesn't know his new schedule. He disputed Mr. Overeem's comment on shared parking, saying he also talked to Noel's management and he doesn't want shared parking. Dr. O'Dell said the overall citizen acceptance of this project is dismal. If the staff wishes, he could have fifty people testify in objection. Charles Antos * 328 17th street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said he would be present on January 6th. He said the Planning Commission Chairman might want to refer the following comments to the City Attorney to have a report to the Commission by January 6th. What is the City's liability (regarding the proposed parking access from off PCH, through an adjacent property, and with the potential for stacking along PCH) and a bicyclist hits one of those cars or there are rear-end collisions? He said he believes the City will be contributorily negligent if it approves this parking arrangement in any sort of accident. Also, staff may wish to check on the Public Call for Projects, an Orange County project administered by Mr. Antos. This Call for proj ects relates to projects dealing with transportation related improvements. This project received sixty-six comments out of 279 responses dealing with drainage, parking, traffic flow, amount of traffic on PCH, traffic congestion, parking of motor homes, trucks, vehicles. The sixty-six comments were from Sunset Beach, Surfside and Huntington Beach in the general area of PCH and Anderson Street. He suggested the Planning Commission look at what's going on in that area as a whole to see what is being done to try to solve traffic problems rather than putting in something that would contribute to them. Mr. Curtis is to obtain that information from Mr. Antos. Bill Padilla * rNo address qivenl Surfside Mr. Padilla said the project plans show four parking spaces against the fence adjacent to Surfside. He estimated this business would have four or five employees and would need more employee parking. . . . Page 22 - P1nnnmg CommISSIon Mmutes of December 9, 1992 Sol John * 320 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. John spoke about the road repairs needed between Long Beach and Huntington Beach. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to continue the Public Hearing on Variance #92-2, Conditional Use Permit #92-12 and Negative Declaration #92-5 to the January 6, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, Orsini *** **. Minor Plan Review #92-43 256/256~ 17th Street Resolution No. 92-76 vice Chairman Dahlman indicated he was handed a copy of a draft resolution but there were no conditions. Mr. Curtis read five (5) conditions which were lifted from the staff report plus the addition of a sixth condition added by the Commission tonight. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Minor Plan Review #92-43, by the adoption of Resolution No. 92-76, subject to conditions. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife, Orsini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mitzie Morton * 153 13th Street. Seal Beach Ms. Morton said she was upset by Mr. Charara's comments, giving the staff a bad time and thinking businesses should be restricted by the City. The pretense that businesses are leaving town because of City staff, Planning Commissioners and residents giving them a hard time are erroneous remarks. This is not true. There have always been certain businesses on Main Street that have never been able to make it because they don't have the merchandise the people require. This has been going on for 21 years she has lived here. She supports the standard conditions for ABC licenses and would not like to see the Commission giving in on them. She said Mr. Charara is trying to confuse the Planning commission by making issues out of non-issues and is trying to cause controversy. . . . Page 23 - PIannmg CllII1D118BlOO MInutes of December 9, 1992 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Curtis spoke on the proposed standard conditions re CUP's for ABC licenses. The Commission recommended those be forwarded to the City Council this evening. staff requested clarification on Mr. Charara's questioning about the trash dumping. Are the problems due to the trash or the bottles? Vice Chairman Dahlman said a good rule is a simple rule because it's enforceable. Taking trash out is simple and clear to understand. Commissioner Sharp said bottles aren't the issue, it's probably the lids on the trash dumpsters. He had a problem with restricting the dumping time too early and favored 11:00 p.m. Mr. curtis said, based on those comments, staff will forward the standard conditions as presented. Mr. curtis spoke about CUP #92-1. the conditions of approval for Tootsie's restaurant at 909 Ocean Avenue. The site has been reinspected and the applicants are abiding by all conditions of approval. Mr. Curtis wished the Planning Commission a happy holiday season. COMMISSION CONCERNS The Commission wished everyone a happy holiday season. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~C~1 I r'o .o...r-.....-. Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary Approva 1 : The Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1992 were approved on January 6, 1993. ~