Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-06MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach; California TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir Erskine, Schumacher The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Porter. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 (Continued from February 7, 1984) Applicant: Donald M. Perry A request to permit an addition to a single-family dwelling located on the west side of Second Street approximately 15-0 feet south of Orange Avenue. Staff reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Perry asking for a continuance of this item. No one was present in the audience to speak for or against the proposal. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1984 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-2/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-01 Applicant: Mol'a Development Corp. (font, from February 22, 1984) A request to deviate from minimum code requirements of setback and aisle drive width and the construction of a 450,700 square foot commercial/office/hotel complex located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 2 Planner Jim Barnes informed the Commission that since the prior meeting the applicant has made modifications to the site plan, sub- stituting a 50,000 square foot office building for the previously proposed hotel on Building Pad No. 2. The project now consists of a 14-story, 210,000 square foot office building on Pad 1; a 4-story, 50,000 square foot office building on Pad 2; a 44,000 square foot Holiday Health Spa on Pad 3; a 1,900 seat, six-plex cinema on Pad 4; a 7,000 square foot restaurant on Pad 5; a 7,200 square foot rest- aurant on Pad 6; and a five -level parking structure containing 665 parking spaces on Pad 7. With 204 surface parking spaces, the total parking to serve the entire development is 869. In response to the Commission's former concerns on the adequacy of parking, applicant has presented additional justification for the amount of parking being proposed. Staff has presented additional information in the form of a matrix showing various parking accumu- lations during different hours of the day. Staff is recommending approval with an added condition to require a conditional use permit and a revised parking analysis prior to any future development on Building Pad No. 2. Commissioner Livengood questioned width of access to the parking structure from Ash Street and whether staff feels the proposed 25 foot aisle width is sufficient within the parking structure. Mr. Barnes replied that staff has conducted a survey of Orange County communities on the aisle width question and found that the common standard was a 25-foot width. Staff has assumed in this sur- vey that the length of the 900 parking stalls adjacent to this 25 foot aisle would be the standard size 19 foot stall, and the cities contacted all indicated that no special provision had been made for compact spaces in their structures when this width was allowed. Com- missioner Higgins cited the requirements of E1 Segundo to note that this city also allows a difference of parking angle to permit even narrower aisle widths than that being requested. The dimensions of the access from Ash Street are sufficient to accommodate this secondary access into the parking structure according to staff cal- culations. Tom Tincher informed the Commission that the land use and planning standards contained in the Redevelopment Plan are those that are contained in the City ordinances and that consistency with the City standards would assure consistency with those of Redevelopment. He also explained that, although the EIR accompanying the Oakview Redevelopment Plan did set forth some specific square footage and parking numbers, the redevelopment plan itself only sets forth gen- eral procedural aspects and basic requirements and would not contain detailed information. He added that the EIR is not legally binding upon the Commission in regard to the site specifics it has spelled . out. The public hearing was reopened. -2- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 3 Frank Mola, developer, addressed the Commission in support of his proposal. He explained that the parking figure they had come up with was based on the joint use parking provisions; it was his feel- ing that because of the fact that the theater would not be operat- ing during the peak hours of operation of the other uses, the amount of parking as proposed would be sufficient to serve all the uses in the development. Mr. Mola said that the reason the hotel had been taken out of the project was to try to come closer to satisfying the concerns of the Commission on parking, but he believed that even the hotel could work with the proposed parking scheme. He also stated that his figures were based on the different require- ments for low-rise, low density development (which he said was the basis for the Huntington Beach code requirements) and high-rise construction, pointing out that not all of the gross floor areas can be occupied, thereby bringing down the amount of actual usable floor space and reducing the square footage for parking calcula- tion. He also asked for a commitment from the Commission to a certain number of square feet for Pad 2 so that he could be assured that his right to build on that location was vested with any approval of his request this date. Commissioner Winchell questioned the advisability of permitting such a large percentage reduction in parking, pointing out that the developer has used absolute minimum in all his calculcations. Legal counsel De La Loza indicated that the 'applicable code sec- tion for joint use of parking specifies "use versus non-use" of facilities, rather than "use versus percentage of use," as com- puted by the applicant. Dean Albright addressed the project in terms of traffic flow, expressing the concern that traffic will come in on Cypress Street in a residential area, further affecting that street's residents. He pointed out that perhaps overflow parking from the project would occur on Cypress, and said that there was inadequate light- ing and security to protect those vehicles. Gordon Offsteen spoke in favor of the project, saying that it will bring in increased revenue for the City and increased employment for its citizens. He indicated that proper synchronization of traffic signals on both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue would ease potential difficulties with traffic and that the decreased parking would not pose a very important problem within the project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Extensive Commission discussion took place on the parking matrices presented by staff and the applicant, the adequacy of aisle widths, the possibility of excluding Pad No. 2 entirely from any approval of this request at this time and requiring an application -3- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 4 in the future for any development thereon, and the completeness of the findings to be made on any approval. Mr. Mora in his discussion with the Commission again voiced the need for vested approval on Pad 2; however, he also proposed that he could ask for approval for all of the project minus Pad 2, with 798 parking spaces to be provided. Any additional square footage to be built would then be provided with one parking space for every 350 square feet of additional construction subject to review by the Director of Development Services. Further review ensued. Chairman Porter voiced the consensus of the Commission which emerged from this discussion, saying that the second building could not be allowed to come up short of parking in the future and the developer should commit to adding a sixth level to the parking structure at this time. He pointed out that the parking as proposed by the applicant is adequate only to serve the project exclusive of Pad 2. Mr. Mola requested a recess to permit him to discuss this with his consultants. The Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Mola again addressed the Commission to state that because of the fact that there is not sufficient parking to satisfy the Commission project would be limited in scope., He indicated that he will add the additional floor to the parking structure by using a first level of subterranean parking and adding one-half floor to the top of the proposed structure. This will result in a height on the Ash Street side of the structure of between 42 and 44 feet and on the Beach Boulevard side of between 52 and 54 feet. This will bring the parking to 1,004 spaces. He used these parking calculations to ask to be allowed approval for between 70,000 and 85,000 gross square feet on Pad No. 2 at this time. Staff, after review, informed the Commission that they find the appli- cant's revised proposal reasonable based on their own parking calculations. It would be their recommendation that the second pad be limited to 70,000 square feet gross area. Following additional discussion, the Planning Commission agreed upon limiting develop- ment on Pad No. 2 to 75,000 square feet of gross area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-01 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLWOING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.' 84-01: 1. The proposed encroachments into sight angle and setback areas and the additional height to a maximum of 55 feet for the parking structure are justified on the basis that such condi- tional exceptions will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conform- ing land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which such conditional exception is sought. 1 -4- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 5 2. Granting the conditional exception will not adversely affect adjacent properties or the community as a whole. 3. Approval of the request for reduction of aisleway widths within the parking structure would not severely impede traffic circulation. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4: 1. The proposed development, with the approval of Conditional Ex- ception No. 84-01, is in conformance with the policies and development standards contained in both the City's General Plan and Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The project will not adversely affect living conditions in the surrounding neighborhood due to its design in terms of provid- ing adequate setbacks from property lines and adjacent streets and landscaped buffers around the perimeter of the site. 3. The project will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion provided that recommendations suggested in the traffic report and by the traffic division of the Department of Public Works are carried out. 4. The project could have a beneficial effect on property values in adjacent areas due to the additional economic stimulation resulting from'an increased number of businesses and employees in the vicinity. 5. The project will provide sufficient parking through the appli- cation of the City's joint use parking provisions by allowing a total parking allocation of 1,004 spaces. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4: 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan received and dated March 2, 1984 to delineate 1,004 parking spaces. The build- ing on Pad No. 2 shall be limited to 75,000 square feet of gross floor area. Any amount of square footage in addition to that figure shall require approval by the Planning Commis- sion after preparation and review of a revised parking anAlysis to determine if any additional parking spaces are required as a result of that proposed additional square footage. -5- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 6 2. The floor plans and elevations dated March 2, 1984, as revised to indicate 135 additional parking spaces through the addition of one story to the parking structure, shall be the approved floor plans and elevations. 3. off -site improvements (e.g., streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in -accordance with Public Works Department standards. All sidewalks on Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide except adjacent to a bus turn- out,where the sidewalk may be reduced to 5 feet. 4. The City and developer shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement with provisions determined by the City for the main- tenance of landscaping along the street frontages. 5. The,curb knuckle at the corner of Sycamore Avenue and Elm Street shall be designed and constructed by the developer in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 6. The traffic signal at Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard shall be modified by the developer in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 7. The developer shall install the necessary underground conduit and connections for a traffic signal and interconnect at Warner Avenue and Ash Street as recommended in the traffic report. If warranted during the time from the first occupancy until six months after 80 percent occupancy, the developer shall install a traffic signal. 8. on -site circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department standards to avoid a vehicular stacking problem to Warner Avenue during pick-up and drop-offs to the theater. 9. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, and Ash Street. 10. Sewer, water, and drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The appli- cant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 11. The applicant shall construct full median improvements on Warner Avenue and upgrade the existing median on Beach Boulevard adjac- ent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 12'. The applicant shall initiate the procedure for vacating the 20-foot alley right-of-way presently on the site. -6- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 7 13. All high rise construction shall comply with local, state, and NFPA standards. 14. All life safety systems shall comply with local, state, and NFPA standards and be approved by the Fire Department. 15. All fire access lanes shall be a minimum of 24 feet. The rear access must be a minimum of 10 feet (City specifications HBFD 401). 16. No parking shall be deisgnated in areas where fire access is required. Entrances to complexes shall have "No Parking in Fire Access" signs posted (City specification - HBFD 415). 17. Fire hydrants shall be located or installed so that all por- tions of ground floor building perimeters be within 150 feet (HBFC - Section 10.301C). 18. All automatic sprinkler, fire alarm, and fire protection sys- tem plans shall be approved by the Fire Department (HBFC - Section 10.301E). 19. Key boxes approved by the Fire Department shall be installed in accessible locations and contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the Fire Department (HBFC - Sec. 10.209). 20. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Perimeter landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. This will include lighting adjacent to the residential areas. 21. Energy efficient lights shall be used in parking areas. All outside lighting shall be diverted to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 22. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth move- ment for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G- factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 23. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the prop- erty during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 24. A planned sign program for the entire complex shall be sub- mitted by the applicant for the approval of the Director of Development Services. -7- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 8 25. Buildings on the site shall reflect a compatible architec- tural theme as approved by the Director of Development Services. 26. Drive aisles adjacent to 900 parking shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. 27. The theater shall not be operated on weekdays before 5:00 p.m. except when a generally observed holiday falls on a weekday. 28. All utilities in the rights -of -way adjacent to the site shall be installed underground'4' AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erksine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir Commissioner Mirjahangir informed the Commission that his absten- tion was based upon legal counsel advising him that his ownership of property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property re- quired that he refrain from voting on the proposal. The applicant was informed of the appeal process and time period. ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 Applicant: Bank of Orange County To permit a change of zone from Q-C3 to Townlot Specific Plan, Area One, Section B for property located on the northwest corner of 17th Street and Olive,Avenue. si Staff reported that its request for continuance is to allow time to include two adjacent parcels in the zone change request and to legally advertise same. Mike Adams presented a brief history of the zone change activity on the subject property. The public hearing was opened. Jack Ellsworth, owner of property at 311 and 309 17th Street, ad- dressed the Commission in opposition to the change to residential, noting that the preponderance of development on 17th is now com- mercial. Paul Columbus, owner of 305 17th Street, also spoke in opposition to the change from commercial to residential zoning. Chairman Porter announced that the public hearing would remain open. rr -8- 3-6-84 - P.C. 1 11 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 9 ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1984, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-25 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to amend Article 951, Restricted Manufacturing District, and Article 953, Light Industrial District, by providing addi- tional development standards for added security within the M1 and Ml-A Districts. The proposed code amendment will include a re- quirement that a use permit be filed and approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to increase the wall height from 7 feet to 9 feet. It will also provide development standards for landscaping pockets, materials used in the construction of the 9 foot high wall, and requirements for tree species and irrigation systems. Commissioner Mirjahangir inquired as to the currently allowable height of the block walls and was informed by staff that the current height is 7 feet around storage areas and 6 feet for a perimeter wall. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was pre- sent to address the code amendment. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-25 WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to add Section 9331(k) to the ordinance code, requiring a conditional use permit subject to certain development criteria for excavation of a land disposal site in Huntington Beach. Jim Barnes informed the Commission that concerns arising from the possible excavation of wellhead crude from the Ascon landfill site led to a City Council -imposed moratorium through an urgency ordinance to prevent such activity on the site. This moratorium -9- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 10 will expire in September of 1984. The Council further directed staff to prepare adequate regulatory measures to safeguard the community and provide an adequate level of control over such activi- ties; this amendment is intended to respond to that Council dir- ection. The ordinance defines landfill disposal sites, requires a conditional use permit application, and establishes criteria to be met by any such proposal. It has been presented to the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee and the committee's comments are summarized in the analysis section of the staff report. In response to.questioning from Chair- man Porter, Mr. Barnes noted that the intent was not to cover boring, either for testing soils or for oil drilling. There is an 0-LUD zoning designation on the site and any request for drilling of oil would be subject to a zone change application to 0-1; this provides an adequate mechanism in the code to address that issue. Commissioner Higgins in reviewing the Ad Hoc Committee's comments inquired if staff could be more definitive regarding mitigating meas- ures. Mr. Barnes replied that the Committee had apparently felt that a list of mitigation measures should be specifically spelled out in the ordinance; however, staff approached the issue from the point of view that there are many unknowns in any hazardous waste site and felt that a more general approach of establishing a mechanism to find out what is in a site and then to require the necessary steps to be taken to mitigate the actual conditions was a more desirable method. This would not pre -suppose what might exist within any site and the ordinance provides the regulatory power to require any level of mitigation that may be deemed necessary once it is determined how hazardous any specific site may be. Mr. Barnes also pointed out minor language changes which have been made by staff in the ordin- ance handed out at the meeting. Commissioner Livengood asked that staff change "operations plan" to "contingency plan" as suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to address the Commission on the matter. Commissioner Mirjahangir, speaking as a member of the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee, questioned why this was before the Commission when the committee had scheduled another meeting on March 12. Staff ex- pressed no opposition to continuing the matter to permit the commit- tee to finish its deliberations. Mr. Mirjahangir then requested that Ascon's consultant be permitted to speak. Mel Malkoff, consultant for Ascon, informed the Commission that he had not been expecting that this item would be continued, noting that there will be several other public hearings to follow this one. He said that a continuance would further delay the consideration of the removal of the materials from the site, and requested that it not be continued but recommended on to the City Council. The Commission briefly discussed timing on the amendment, the possi- bility of bonding being included, and the schedule of the Committee. -10- 3-6-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 11 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1984, TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE ASCON AD HOC COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE ITS INPUT INTO THE ORIDNANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-31 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to replace Section 9811.4, Plot Plan Amendments, with Section 9811.4, Site Plan Amendments, in Article 981. This will provide the Board of Zoning Adjustments the same process for re- view of minor revisions to projects as used by the Planning Com- mission. Staff presented a brief report on the reasons for the code amendment. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the matter. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-31 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to amend Article 973, Section 9730.56, Seasonal Park- ing Lots, and add Section 9730.57, Seasonal Parking Lots, Con- formance to Standards Prior to Permit. Revocation of Permit and Section 9730.80, Certificate to Operate. The proposed amendment will establish specific times of operation and stand- ards for seasonal parking lots within 1,000 yards of mean high tide line. Mike Adams made a short presentation on the aim of the code amendment, and explained the new provision for a Certificate to Operate, which would apply to all seasonal parking lots as well as to other temporary and provisional uses which do not now re- quire operating entitlement. A $25.00 fee has been recommended by staff for this certificate. The public hearing was opened and closed. -11- 3-6-84 - P,C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 12 The Commission discussed the surfacing of lots, particularly as the requirement would be applied uniformly to all applicants. Minor wording change was directed to be inserted into that part of the amendment relating to surfacing requirements. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-3 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to amend Article 910, Low Density Residential District, in Section 9106 - R1 Zone Parking Requirements; Section 9106.5 - Permitted Parking Area to change the types of vehicles which may be parked on the driveway apron. Mike Adams reported that this code amendment is intended to clarify the types of vehicles which may be parked or stored in the R1 Dis- trict inside of a driveway pad. The Commission discussed the wording and directed that a definition of "over -sized" be included in the ordinance and that a sentence be reconstructed to make it clear that the phrase "which are not over -sized" applies to all the vehicles listed. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one appeared to speak for or against the amendment. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-3 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None PENDING ITEMS: Staff has conducted a survey of illegal signs along Goldenwest Street and will be contacting property owners. Nineteen operators have been contacted in regard to illegal horse stables. Some of the operations have ceased; staff will pursue this matter. A survey of oil facilities adjacent to Goldenwest Street has re- sulted in a finding that the storage is legal storage. lJ -12- 3-6-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 6, 1984 Page 13 Staff has reviewed Design Review Board's past functions and is preparing a history for Commission's review. Reciprocal access between Newland Center and the bowling alley will be looked into when either or both apply for additional entitlements. Information is being prepared by staff regarding a sign design theme for city -owned properties. The Commission reviewed the list of subcommittees, deleting and combining some committees and appointing new members. The new list of committees and members is attached to and made a part of these minutes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Porter presented a brief overview of the Planning Commissioners Institute held in San Diego on February 29 - March 2, 1984, for the Commission's information. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Acting Secretary Glen Godfrey distributed the action agenda from the City Council meeting of March 5, 1984. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Glen K. Godfrey Acting Secretary :df Marcus M. orter, ai an -13- 3-6-84 - P.C. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEES: Subdivision Committee: Winchell (Alternate) Porter Schumacher Higgins Transportation: Porter, Mirjahangir (Alternate) Housing: Livengood Winchell Schumacher (Alternate) Industrial Committee: Ad Hoc Design Review Higgins Board: Porter (Alternate) Ad Hoc Downtown Dev- Schumacher elopment Committee: Livengood Erskine (Alternate) Oil Committee: Mirjahangir Porter (Alternate) Arterial Highway Higgins, Porter Beautification Com- mittee: Temporary Dance Com- Schumacher mittee: Porter Livengood Ascon Ad Hoc Com- Mirjahangir mittee: Environmental Board: Livengood Committee list above was formed after deletion of certain prior committees, combination of three separate housing committees, and re -assignment of Commissioners at the regu- lar meeting of March 6, 1984.