Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-04APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1985 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirja angir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter (on vacation) CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on August 5, 1985 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir (absent from August 5 meeting) MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine requested the Downtown Parking Transit and Financing Study be scheduled for formal discussion at a future meeting and suggested that the Commission set a date for such a discussion later on in tonight's meeting. C. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-30 Applicant: Chevron USA On August 21, 1115 the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-30, a request to permit a convenience market at an existing service station, in order to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans as suggested by staff. zone Change 85-9 in conjunction wit a request to add an SS suffix to an C2-Community Business. zone Change Planning Commission at their August for approval by the City Council. allow for the construction of a con with the sale of gasoline. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: h Conditional Use Permit 85-30 is existing service station zoned 85-9 was previously heard by the 5, 1985 meeting and recommended The conditional use permit will venience market in conjunction The Department of Development Services posted Draft Negative Declaration No. 85-35 for ten days. No comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be adopted; prior to action on the project applications, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended adoption of Negative Declaration No. 85-35 to the City Council at the August 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Secretary Palin shared some concerns from the City Council regarding the prohibition of alcoholic sales with these types of operations and suggested that a condition be added to this conditional use permit that no sales of alcoholic beverage be allowed in conjunction with this type of use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED William Neeley, Property Management Specialist from Chevron spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendations and would be supportive of the new condition. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-30 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.85-30: 1. The service station/convenience market located on the northwest corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to property values or improvements in the vicinity. u PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -2- (3238d) 2. The proposed convenience market with gasoline station is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. 3. The proposed convenience market with gasoline station is compatible with existing commercial uses in the area. 4. The proposed location, site layout and design will properly adapt the site to streets, driveways and adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses on the site are properly integrated. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the service station/ convenience market will not create traffic or circulation problems. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated August 27, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permit and reflect the following: a. A landscaped planter of at least 600 square feet with 20 feet minimum dimension from property line inward measured along the bisector of the property lines. 3. Landscaping shall comply with S.9430.8.1(b) and all applicable sections pertaining to landscaping within Article 948 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. New driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 6. No building permit shall be issued until Zone Change No. 84-9 becomes effective. 7. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 8. All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 10. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -3- (3238d) 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 12. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 13. No sales of beer or wine shall be allowed with such use. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-33 Applicant: Margie Powers Conditional Use Permit No. 85-33 is a request to establish a child day care facility in a single family home for up to twelve (12) children. It was continued from the August 20, 1985 meeting to allow for proper notification of surrounding property owners. Staff has compiled some additional information on the request and has changed their recommendation from denial to approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The proposed project is exempt by Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Margie Powers, the applicant, spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendation. Linda McCown, neighbor and Detective from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department in charge of investigating child abuse cases, spoke in favor of the applicant and wanted to clear up any questions or concerns that Staff may have regarding traffic in the neighborhood as a result of the day care facility. Her children attend the day care and she stated that most of the children were neighborhood children and walked to the facility therefore not causing a traffic problem. Beverly Titus, Sheila Blandford and Jim Everman (neighbors) were there to speak in favor of the day care facility assuring Staff and the Commission that there were no noise problems or traffic problems. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell pointed out that in looking to the future with the increasing number of day care facilities, that perhaps an added finding of approval stating ... "the proposed day care facility is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the petition signed by adjacent neighbors and testimony in support of the application at the public hearing, would be appropriate." PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -4- (3238d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-33 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, 1. The proposed day care facility will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The access to the day care facility will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care facility is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the petition signed by 81 adjacent neighbors and testimony in support of the application at the public hearing. 4. The proposed day care facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated July 18, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care of six to twelve children. 3. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -5- (3238d) C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-262/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 Applicant: Coastal Properties Ltd. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-35/Tentative Parcel Map 85-262/Coastal Development Permit No. 85-17/Negative Declaration No. 85-43 is a request to combine two, twenty-five wide lots into a one lot subdivision and to construct a three unit condominium project on the property. The zone district is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. Pursuant to Section 4.1.01 of the Downtown Specific Plan a conditional use permit is required for any condominium project. This item was continued from the meeting date of August 20, 1985 at the request of the applicant. The applicant has again requested a continuance to the September 17, 1985 to allow additional time for the completion of revised plans to more substantially conform to city standards, and to allow time for advertising a variance/special permit request since the proposal will still have some remaining deviations from code requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-43 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the proposed project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-43. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, C-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-8 Applicant: Southland Signs Special Sign Permit No. 85-8 is a request to construct a 20 foot high, 99 square foot (internally), freestanding sign located at 7011 Warner Avenue approximately 500 feet east of Goldenwest Street. The proposed sign will contain 28 tenant copy panels and will be located in a landscaped area. The retail center is governed by Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 and only one, 25 foot high freestanding sign is allowed along the Warner Avenue frontage. 1 PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -6- (3238d) On August 20, 1985, the Planning Commission continued Special Sign Permit No. 85-8 by a vote of 6 to 0. This item was continued to allow additional time for staff and the applicant to work together towards designing a low profile monument sign which will satisfy the advertising needs of the tenants that do not have direct exposure to Warner Avenue or Goldenwest Street. The applicant will be submitting revised plans and staff is requesting additional time to evaluate the proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Law and Guidelines 1984, the proposed project is categorically exempt. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-8 TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 TENTATIVE TRACT 12534/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-37/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-26 - PRODUCT AREA B2 Applicant: Seacliff Estates Conditional Use Permit No. 85-37 in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 12537 is a request to revise the previously approved tentative tract (10069) and conditional use permit for a portion of Seacliff Phase IV project. The revised site plan is a request to permit a 45 unit planned residential development, with a townhouse type design. The project area is'presently planned and approved for 11 single family dwellings. The existing plan limited the number of units because of an isolated oil well on site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In January 1979, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068 and 10069 in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-33. These applications established the Seacliff Phase IV Project, a 550 unit planned residential development. The entire project was assessed under Environmental Impact Report No. 77-6. The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report 77-6 at the time the previously mentioned applications were acted upon. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -7- (3238d) A subsequent traffic study and sewer analysis were submitted to the staff for review in order to determine the impacts from the increase in density associated with revisions to Tentative Tract 10067 in November 1984. Staff's analysis indicates that further environmental analysis is not warranted at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dave Eadie, representing Seacliff Estates, spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendations and conditions of approval resulting from their meetings and the recent August Subdivision meeting, in which members of the Commission and Staff were present. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. It was verified by Staff that concerns regarding the jogging and bike paths going through the entire development had been sufficiently addressed. This matter had been followed up and was reflected in the conditions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 12534/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-37/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 85-26 - PRODUCT AREA B2 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, FINDINGS FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-26 1. LUP. That the development project proposed by the CDP application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the C-LUP; 2. Zoning Regulations. That the CDP application is consistent with the specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; 3. Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP; 4. California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -8- (3238d) 1 I�� FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. Promote better living environments, insofar as the project is an integrated part of an overall planned residential neighborhood (as demonstrated by the inter -linking jogging and bike path). 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design of which this plan has incorporated to create interesting shapes, planes, and areas to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings. 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of a totally designed neighborhood and remains within the constraints of the land and surrounding uses. 4. Be consistent with the objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. This project has been designed to mitigate the majority of environmental effects on the surrounding property while maximizing the features of the natural terrain. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-37 (B2): 1. The proposed project as presented is consistent with the land use designation on the subject property. 2. If the Special Permit is granted, the proposed plan will be in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 936, planned unit development, and will be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT 12534 (B2): 1. The proposed subdivision of this 7.6 acre parcel of land zoned R3-0-CZ, will be constructed having 5.9 units per acre. 2. The general plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's general plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and through the use of a special permit all other design and implementation features of the subdivision, are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and City Subdivision Ordinance. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -9- (3238d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The staff is recommending that all applicable adopted Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 77-23 be maintained for Conditional Use Permit 85-36 with the addition of the following: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-37: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 27, 1985, shall be the approved layout and design. 2. Section 65590(D) of the Government Code requires that new housing developments constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons of low and moderate income. Where it is not feasible to provide these units in a proposed new housing development, the City shall require the developer to provide such housing, if feasible to do so, at another location within the same city or county, either within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. The staff is recommending that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide 37 affordable housing units. This will satisfy areas B1 and B2. The minimum number of units shall be priced at or below that which is deemed affordable to persons earning 120% of the median family income for this statistical area of Orange County. In the alternative, the applicant may enter into an agreement with the City prior to issuance of building permits to provide affordable housing units either on -site, through a transfer of excess affordable unit credits with another developer, or through any other method acceptable to the City at the time of commitment. The amount of affordable units to be provided shall be not less than the requirements in effect at the time the agreement is executed. In both of the above instances, if affordable housing requirements are no longer in existence at the time building permits are to be issued, this condition of approval will no longer be applicable. 3. All proposed gates shall be equipped with the Knox Locking System, dual -keyed for police and fire access. (Compliance with Specification 103.) 4. Any road which is determined to be a fire lane shall be painted red and posted with appropriate signing to meet Fire Department specifications. 5. Emergency access shall be available northerly on 38th Street to the extension of Garfield Avenue and from that point easterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the intersection of PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -10- (3238d) 1 IL J Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Such emergency access shall remain in force until public access is available from Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to a dedicated and improved 38th Street having at least two 12-foot travel lanes. The emergency access shall be subject to Fire Department approval as to proper grading, alignment, identification, illumination, and security method. In addition, the emergency access shall be paved to a full twenty-four (24) foot width and shall be maintained by the applicant and shall be installed prior to the first occupancy. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATATIVE TRACT NO. 12534: 1. At the time of acceptance by the City Council of a final tract for the subject property, any other layout depicted on a tentative tract (for the same site) shall become null and void. 2. The water main loop system shall be constructed to connect to Edwards Street prior to development of these tracts. The system shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The cross sections on the tentative tract maps shall be revised to show that all streets are private except for Seaview Avenue. Also, Cherryhill Drive (private street) shall not include a public utility easement. 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 12534 dated August 23, 1985, shall be the approved layout subject to the following: a. Reciprocal access through Doral Drive shall be maintained between the subject property and the vacant R3-0 site to the southeast. b. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a zone change for a portion of Tentative Tract No. 12534 (specifically located in the rear half of Unit 9) from ROS to R3-0-CZ. As an alternative, the applicant may jog the "Blue Border" so that no property within Tentative Tract No. 12534 is within the ROS zoning designation. C-6 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12532/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-36/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 85-25 - PRODUCT AREA B1 Applicant: Seacliff Estates Conditional Use Permit No. 85-36 in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 12532 is a request to revise a portion of a previously approved Tentative Tract (10067) for Seacliff Phase IV project. The revised plan will allow for 104 townhome type units on 16 acres of property with a density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -11- (3238d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In January 1979, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068 and 10069 in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-33. These applications established the Seacliff Phase IV Project, a 550 unit planned residential development. The entire project was assessed under Environmental Impact Report No. 77-6. The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report 77-6 at the time the previously mentioned applications were acted upon. A subsequent traffic study and sewer analysis were submitted to the staff for review in order to determine the impacts from the increase in density associated with revisions to Tentative Tract 10067 in November 1984. Staff's analysis indicates that further environmental analysis is not warranted at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dave Eadie, representing Seacliff Estates, spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendations and conditions of approval resulting from their meetings and the recent August Subdivision meeting, in which members of the Commission and Staff were present. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12532/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-36/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 85-25 - PRODUCT AREA B1 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-25 1. LUP. That the development project proposed by the CDP application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the C-LUP; 2. Zoning Regulations. That the CDP application is consistent with the specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; 3. Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP; PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -12- (3238d) 4. California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with e public access and public recreation policies of Chapter of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. Promote better living environments, insofar as the project is an integrated part of an overall planned residential neighborhood (as demonstrated by the inter -linking jogging and bike path). 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design of which this plan has incorporated to create interesting shapes, planes, and areas to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings. 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of a totally designed neighborhood and remains within the constraints of the land and surrounding uses. 4. Be consistent with the objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. This project has been designed to mitigate the majority of environmental effects on the surrounding property while maximizing the features of the natural terrain. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-36: The Planning Commission may approve an application for a Conditional Use Permit when it finds that the plan will substantially comply with the requirements of this Article (936), the general plan of land uses, and the development standards for the particular use. 1. The proposed project as presented is consistent with the land use designation on the subject property. 2. If the Special Permit is granted, the proposed plan will be in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 936, planned unit development, and will be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT 12532: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 16 acre parcel of land zoned R2-PD-0-CZ, will be constructed having 6.5 units per acre. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -13- (3238d) 2. The general plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's general plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and through the use of a special permit all other design and implementation features of the subdivision, are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS: The staff is recommending that all applicable adopted Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 77-23 be maintained for Conditional Use Permit 85-36 with the addition of the following: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-36: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 27, 1985, shall be the approved layout and design. 2. Section 65590(D) of the Government Code requires that new housing developments constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons of low and moderate income. Where it is not feasible to provide these units in a proposed new housing development, the City shall require the developer to provide such housing, if feasible to do so, at another location within the same city or county, either within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. The staff is recommending that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide 37 affordable housing units. This will satisfy the requirements for B1 and B2 product areas. The minimum number of units shall be priced at or below that which is deemed affordable to persons earning 120% of the median family income for this statistical area of Orange County. In the alternative, the applicant may enter into an agreement with the City prior to issuance of building permits to provide affordable housing units either on -site, through a transfer of excess affordable unit credits with another developer, or through any other method acceptable to the City at the time of commitment. The amount of affordable units to be provided shall be not less than the requirements in effect at the time the agreement is executed. In both of the above instances, if affordable housing requirements are no longer in existence at the time building permits are to be issued, this condition of approval will not longer be applicable. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -14- (3238d) 3. All proposed gates shall be equipped with the Knox Locking System, dual -keyed for police and fire access. (Compliance with Specification 103.) 4. Any road which is determined to be a fire lane shall be painted red and posted with appropriate signing to meet Fire Department specifications. 5. Emergency access shall be available northerly on 38th Street to the extension of Garfield Avenue and from that point easterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Such emergency access shall remain in force until public access is available from Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to a dedicated and improved 38th Street having at least two 12-foot travel lanes. The emergency access shall be subject to Fire Department approval as to proper grading, alignment, identification, illumination, and security method. In addition, the emergency access shall be paved to a full twenty-four (24) foot width and shall be maintained by the applicant and shall be installed prior to the first occupancy. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12534: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 12534 dated August 23, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. At the time of acceptance by the City Council of a final tract for the subject property, any other layout depicted on a tentative tract (for the same site) shall become null and void. 3. The water main loop system shall be constructed to connect to Edwards Street prior to development of these tracts. The system shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The cross sections on the tentative tract maps shall be revised to show that all streets are private except for Seaview Avenue. Also, Cherryhill Drive (private street) shall not include a public utility easement. C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-39 Applicant: James and Nancy MacMillan The applicants are requesting approval to operate a day care center for ten children within an existing single family dwelling. They have operated a small family day care center for six children for the past year. One of the children has been their own. With the birth of a second child, they now wish to expand to have a total capacity of ten children, two of which would be their own. Section 9331(d) lists day care centers as an unclassified use permitted in the R1 district subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -15- (3238d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Livengood questioned whether the proper notification procedure was followed on this item and Staff assured him that it did and that everyone within a 300 foot radius was notified. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James and Nancy MacMillan spoke in support of the project and concurred with staff's recommendation. Mr. George Hafner, present only to make a suggestion to the Commission regarding day care centers. He suggested that an aerial view rather than just a front view be submitted with each day care application. His concerns were with adjacent homes having pools or some unseen problems that would be hazardous to such operations. Chuck Wassack spoke in support of the project. He stated that their neighborhood was on a cul-de-sac with low traffic and that he had never noticed a traffic problem because of the day care facility. Virginia Brady spoke in support of the project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there was a petition submitted by the applicant of adjacent home owners in her neighborhood. The applicant submitted a copy of the petition to the Commission and stated for the record that he lived in a much smaller tract than the others proposed this evening and that the petition did include names from the majority of the neighborhood. Commissioner Livengood asked whether there would be a problem with Meadowlark Airport in regard to flight patterns, etc. Staff assured him that there would be no problem. Commissioner Schumacher asked if Finding No. 3 should be revised to read that the proposed day care center be compatible with other uses in the neighborhood as demonstrated by petition of existing surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Livengood agreed that this was an excellent revision. Commissioner Erskine suggested that advantage be taken of Staff's finding in Issues and Analysis of the staff report. That because two of the children living in the immediate neighborhood and two of the children being the applicant's own that it reduced the impact of the use to that of a small family day care center, explaining why there would not be any undue traffic problems. 1 PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -16- (3238d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-39 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the day care center will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed day care center is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood, as demonstrated by a petition signed by surrounding neighbors and public testimony. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed day care center will not create any undue traffic problems. The maximum number of children will be ten, but two are the applicant's own, and at least another two are from the immediate neighborhood. This reduces the impact of the use to that of a small family day care center (6 children). 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated August 8, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of ten children. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -17- (3238d) 5. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 6. A copy of the applicant's state license shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM only. 8. A hold harmless agreement shall be filed and approved by the Risk Manager prior to the initiation'of the use. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-41 Applicant: Cynthia Hewitt The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Lark View School at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms Al, A2 and A3. These classrooms total approximately 2,455 square feet. Sixty children between the ages of 2-1/2 to 5 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Monte McMurray, Business Manager for the Oceanview School District gave a brief overview regarding the leasing of space at four recently closed schools due to declining enrollment. He stated that the school board has adopted criteria for leasing space as they were concerned about negatively impacting a neighborhood and that the district will maintain upkeep of all facilities. He pointed out that these facilities will accommodate 370 to 750 students and are located on 11 to 14 acre sites. Commissioner Livengood was assured that all conditions and proposals were reviewed by the school board and that the board was supportive of them as submitted and also that they do monitor the licenses and make sure all permits are in order. Dr. Eugene Hanson, father of the applicant, was present speaking in support of the proposal. He explained that the applicant was in England due to an unforeseen problem. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -18- (3238d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-41 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 19, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms Al, A2, and A3 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of sixty children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -19- (3238d) 6. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 7. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 8. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM only. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 Applicant: Don Hartfelder The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11140 and Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 on the subject property on October 7, 1980. Tentative Tract No. 11140 was a request to subdivide the subject property into a one lot subdivision. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 was a request to permit the construction of eight residential condominium units. The proposed layout indicated eight units contained in two buildings located towards the front of the site with semi -subterranean garages underneath each unit. The required open space was located at the rear of the site. The project was never built and both approvals received extensions of time first to April 1983 and then to April 1984. The applicant redesigned the site plan for the eight units and submitted it under a new conditional use permit application No. 83-14. On August 2, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 83-14, a request to permit the construction of an 8 unit condominium complex. The two year time limit on the approval of this project has since expired because actual construction has not commenced. The staff has recently learned through a detailed analysis of the site plan that the actual lot size, after full street dedication, is 20 feet shorter in length than had been previously described. Thus, the allowed density is reduced to 7 units from the original approval. The applicant is now seeking a density bonus for one -unit to allow for the construction of an 8 unit development. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 80-41 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980 for an eight -unit condominium development on the subject property. Staff has determined that no additional environmental assessment is necessary. 1 PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -20- (3238d) Staff pointed out an added condition of approval to Tentative Tract 11140 which reads: Tentative Tract Map No. 11140 dated February 7, 1985 shall be the approved layout. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Don Hartfelder, Architect for the project, spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendations. He stated that the project is a unique solution to the narrow lot condition that exists in the area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Questions and answers between Staff and the Commissioners ensued regarding the calculation of units/density, allowing a density bonus for street right-of-way area dedications, and government codes concerning affordable housing set asides. At this point Commissioner Mirjahangir asked permission to address the Commission from the podium. He stated that because of his involvement with the project, being owner of said property, he would have to abstain from voting on any action concerning this proposal. He was permitted to do so. He then spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendations. Density bonuses and what governs them was the topic of the discussion that followed. Mr. Mirjahangir said they would be willing to add a condition to their proposal that 25% of the units would be set aside for low to moderate income families as determined by the County of Orange. The Planning Commission acknowledged that this project had previously been approved for 8 units, however street area dedications were incorrectly calculated and dimensioned at that time. One more unit probably would not impact this neighborhood; however, the Commission felt that more time was needed to review the findings and conditions to determine what recommendations should be made regarding a density bonus or other incentives to the builder and what action should be taken on this project. They also had concerns regarding the special permits being requested for a guest parking space and lanscaping in front of the building because of a 42 inch decorative wall. Mr. Mirjahangir, property owner, stated that he did not feel more time would be beneficial to the proposal. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -21-' (3238d) ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT 25% OF THE UNITS SHALL BE SET ASIDE FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES AS DETERMINED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell NOES: Shumacher, Rowe ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION FAILED SINCE THERE WAS A LACK OF 4 AYE VOTES THE MOTION FAILS AND IS AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING OR TO A DATE ASCERTAINED BY ALL PARTIES CONCERNED) ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Schumacher . ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED The Chairman clarified for the City Attorney that Mr. Mirjahangir disqualified himself on this item because of the requirements of the political reform act. C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-38 Applicant: Ty -Juan Markham Conditional Use Permit No. 85-38 is a request to establish a private elementary school and conservatory in a former elementary school facility. The elementary school would consist of two classrooms with 60-65 students; the conservatory would provide music, ballet and gymnastics lessons during after school and early evening hours. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt by Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ty -Juan Markham, the applicant, spoke in support of the project and concurred with Staff's recommendation. She also requested that we change Condition No. 4 to read ..Conservancy ending time shall be 8:00 PM. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -22- (3238d) Barbara Dodson, a concerned neighbor, wanted to know who would be responsible for maintenance of the site and was concerned with the parking in the area and the "No Parking" signs in the neighborhood. She wanted to know if the signs were going to be taken down. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal the the public hearing was closed. It was decided after discussions regarding the "No parking" signs and the requirements for signage by the school, to work with Public Works regarding these ordinances and to set some criteria relative to parking for future day care applications located at closed school sites. It was also suggested to add a condition that any signage program shall be approved by the District as well as the Director of Development Services. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-38 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: - 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the elementary school will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The elementary school is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan of Land Use because the property was originally developed as a school site. 4. Access to the elementary school will not cause undue traffic problems. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 7, 1985 shall be the approved layout. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -23- (3238d) 2. Approval shall be for a maximum enrollment of 75 full time students. Any increase over 75 shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. 3. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM only. The conservatory shall operate between 3:00 PM and 8:00 PM. 4. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 5. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this Conditional Use Permit upon any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents; any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 7. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 8. Any signage program shall be approved by District as well as Director of Development Services. C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-42 Applicant: Under the Rainbow Children's Center The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school and day care center at the closed Glen View School at 6621 Glen Drive, which is east of Edwards Street and south of McFadden Avenue. The facility is proposed for Rooms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Section 9331(c) and (d) lists pre-schools and day care centers as unclassified uses permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tay Abercrombie, applicant, was present and spoke in support of the proposal and concurred with Staff's recommendations. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -24- (3238d) Joe Jakeman, adjacent neighbor to the project, spoke in opposition to the project because of his concerns regarding the maintenance of playgrounds and that the playgrounds would no longer be available to neighborhood children. He felt that the ingress and egress to the fields were very dangerous. He feels that consideration should be taken by the district and the Commission, so that a dangerous situation is not continued at these closed school sites. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal the the public hearing was closed. Commissioners felt that the same condition regarding signage be added to this project and that a report regarding safety at closed schools be addressed later on in the meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-42 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school/day care center will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school/day care center is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school/day care center will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 20, 1985, shall be the approved layout. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -25- (3238d) 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms 2, 3, 41 5 and 6 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of one hundred children. The initial approval, however, shall be for up to fifty-five children. Increasing the number beyond this amount shall require a review by the Planning Commission. Then again, prior to any expansion beyond eighty-five children, a review by the Planning Commission shall be conducted. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 6. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 7. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 8. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM only. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. Any signage program shall be approved by District as well as Director of Development Services. C-12 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-12 Applicant; City of Huntington Beach Zone Change No. 85-12 would remove the "0" suffix zoning from an oil operation site that each contains a single pumping unit which has been classified as "non -producing". ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 84-41 covering Zone Change No. 85-6 and this zone change was adopated by the City Council on August 19, 1985. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -26- (3238d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal the the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO TABLE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-12 UNTIL NECESSARY INFORMATION ON OIL PRODUCTION IS AVAILABLE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-25/REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 A request to modify Tentative Tract 10067 by reducing the number of units from 93 to 88. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-25/TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS• 1. The proposed replotting of Tentative Tract 10067 does not constitute a substantial change to development. 2. The density for Tentative Tract 10067 will not increase as a result of approval of Site Plan Amendment No. 85-25. 3. The reduction in unit count from 93 to 88 units with the replotting of the layout will result in an improved development within Seacliff Phase IV. 4. The replotting of six unit modules will comply with all the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -27- (3238d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All conditions of approval imposed on Tentative Tract 10067 and Conditional Use Permit 84-32 shall be applicable to Site Plan Amendment No. 85-25. 2. Site Plan dated August 23, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 3. The Tentative Tract Map received and dated October 17, 1984 subject to the conditions of approval required by the Planning Commission at their November 27, 1984 meeting for a 430 lot subdivision, shall be the approved layout for tentative tract 10067. D-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-5 A request for reconsideration of Special Sign Permit No. 85-5 that was denied at the August 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-5 AND SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schuamcher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS DOWNTOWN PARKING TRANSIT AND FINANCING STUDY - It was decided to set this study as a "D Item" at the September 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. FUTURE DAY CARE APPLICATIONS - Applicants should be encouraged to submit signed petitions in favor of the application from residents of the neighborhood. Staff was directed to include aerial slides of the proposed day care property. F. PENDING ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested a report be done on the safety at closed school sites with regard to playground maintenance, parking, ingress and egress to school sites, etc. Commissioner Schumacher asked that the City actively pursue action against the illegal storage going on in the Clay Street/Main Street/Goldenwest Street/Gothard Street areas. PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -28- (3238d) Chairman Livengood stated that the dangerous dirt piles located in the front of the Foreign Car Repair business at the corner of Warner and Bolsa Chica had been removed. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: None H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Jim Palin presented a synopsis of the City Council meeting held September 3, 1985 for the information of the Commission. Staff recommended that a representative be sent to the City of Westminister Planning Commission meeting to be held September 9, 1985, to speak in opposition to the proposed reduction of required front setbacks for the proposed commercial development in the redevelopment project area on Beach Boulevard, north of Heil. It is the City's position that the setbacks should comply with the City of Huntington Beach standards. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WESTMINISTER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 PM to the regular meeting on Tuesday, September 17, 1985. Tom Liv o I d, Ch rma PC Minutes - 9/4/85 -29- (3238d)