Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-26APPROVED 9/16/96 i MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P(arrived 7:25) ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P(arrived 7:05) Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: None PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -1- (6039d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-39 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 5, 1986) Zone Change No. 86-22/Negative Declaration No. 86-39 is a request to change the zone from R2 to R2-15 (15 units per gross acre). It was continued from the meeting of August 5, 1986 to allow staff to arrive at the best approach for solving a problem concerning the density calculations for a specific area of the community. This zone change is being processed by the City to ensure that a like number of units can be constructed on each lot after additional dedication for the widening of Heil Avenue west of Beach Blvd. The zone change is deemed necessary due to the large additional right-of-way dedication required by the Public Works Department. The additional area will be twenty-five feet off existing lots that are presently 120 feet in length. Seventeen lots are included in this request; the lot at the corner of Silver Lane and Heil Avenue is not a part of the zone change. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-39 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the protect, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the zone change it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-39. Staff's recommendation: Approve Zone Change No. 86-22/Negative Declaration No. 86-39 based on findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the zone change and the public hearing was closed. A brief discussion ensued regarding the dedications and density calculations in this area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-39, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -2- (6039d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone designation of R2-15 (15 units per gross acre) is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential which is also a maximum of 15 units per gross acre. 2. Medium Density Residential development is compatible with the surrounding land uses. No change in density from that which had been planned for the area will result from the proposed zone change to R2-15. 3. Approval of zone Change No. 86-22 will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30/NEGATIVE DECLARA`:ION NO. 86-42 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 is a request by the applicant to permit the temporary storage of lumber on the property )cated on the south side of Warner Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Palmdale Avenue, pursuant to Section 9331.3 of the Ordinance Code. Section 9331.3 permits temporary uses such as lumber storage, contractor's storage yards and mulching operations for an initial period of two years upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The applicant without benefit of permit is presently using the site for the storage of lumber and plywood. Section 9331.3 also states that a temporary use may be approved by the Planning Commission for an additional year, with a maximum of three such one year extensions of time. Said temporary use shall also comply with other code requirements including parking, access and setbacks. Such temporary use shall also be subject to additional conditions and or development standards as may be required by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-42 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-42. Staff's recommendation: Approve.Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 and Negative Declaration No. 86-42 based on the findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -3- (6039d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Harrington, Owner - James Lumber, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he had reviewed the conditions'of approval and had met with the City traffic engineer. He further stated that he was concerned with Condition #12 regarding the construction of the block wall fence and Condition #19 regarding the dedication. He felt that the property owner (Southern Pacific Railroad) should be contacted. Richard Carlson, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, addressed the concerns of the property owner, Southern Pacific Railroad. There is presently 125 feet of public team tract and the public takes access from Warner Avenue to load and unload. They are concerned with the dedication of Warner Avenue. He explained that there is a 30-day lease (month to month) on the James Lumber property and that it can be broken any time. Mel Rosenstein, Ideal Pallet, spoke in support of James 'umber. He stated that his company has been leasing Southern Pacif 3 Railroad land for fourteen years and is presently in legal litigation with them over the blocking of his unloading operation. He has never been allowed to store his lumber. Bill Longley spoke in support of James Lumber. He stated that for fifteen years this property was a City dump. James Lumber has cleaned it up and should be commended for his efforts. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. There were several legal questions: 1) Does the Ordinance Code require a conditional use permit for a temporary lumber storage yard? .2) Is there proper authorization from the property owner for the added use? 3) The project needs a master plan. It was suggested that this item be continued and staff was instructed to investigate the following: 1) Who should be submitting the request? 2) Clarification of the right of way; 3) Permits regarding.ingress and egress to this property; 4) Public Works comments; A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-42 TO THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -4- (6039d) C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-32 is a request to expand an existing pre-school at the closed Lark View School at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The expanded pre-school is proposed for Rooms B3 and B4 which total approximately 11920 square feet. An additional forty-four children for a total of 88 children between the ages of 2 to 6 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the overall 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 under Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 0 Staff's Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-32 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Marina Williams, the applicant, was present to speak in support of the proposed project. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioner requested that staff update the statistics regarding the cumulative population count in these school sites. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: I.' The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school expansion 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. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -5- (6039d) 3. Expansion of the pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school expansion 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 July 24, 1986, 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 B3 and B4 only. Any further expansion of the pre-school sha-t require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for an additional enrollment of forty-four children to the existing forty-four approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 85-41 for a maximum of 88. Any further 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 receive 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. 6. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the expansion. 7. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the expansion. 8. The pre-school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday 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. All conditions of approval previously imposed under Conditional Use Permit 85-41 shall remain in effect for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-32. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -6- (6039d) C-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-31 is a request to permit an expansion of an existing day care operation from six to twelve children in a single family dwelling pursuant to Section 9331 of the Ordinance Code. The day care operation is located northeast of the intersection of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street at 16351 Saratoga Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommends the Planning Commission table Conditional Use Permit No. 86-6 until the City Council revises the ordinance regulating Day Care facilities. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ruth Carter, applicant, was present to answer any quest.Lons and to present petitions circulated in her neighborhood supporting the project. She stated that there should not be a traffic problem in the neighborhood presented by the day care center. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Staff's recommendation to table the use permit was questioned by the Commissioners. What more conditions could be imposed that were not already being imposed? Was this legal? The City Attorney said that legally the use permit could not be held up for an ordinance to impose more conditions. Chairman Livengood stated that he would be abstaining from the vote since he lived in the neighborhood. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting against the use permit because she felt that more than six children were too many in a residential neighborhood. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Livengood MOTION TIED PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -7- (6039d) City Attorney was asked for legal opinion as to whether Chairman Livengood could abstain from voting because he lived in the neighborhood. Attorney De La Loza stated that he should abstain only if he had a monetary interest in the business. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED There was some confusion regarding the wording of the motion and the vote. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-- , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe,. Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -8- (6039d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for twelve children 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 as is supported by the petition submitted by the applicant. 2. The access to the day care operation for twelve children will not cause undue traffic problems, since the drop-off and pick-up times will be staggered. 3. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the petition signed by 27 neighbors, and public testimony in support of the application at the meeting. 4. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan a, 3 will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. - 5. The proposed day care operation is not on a cul-de-sac street and has access from two directions thus reducing the traffic impact on the neighborhood. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 16, 1986 shall be the approved layout. 2. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of only twelve children. 3. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. 4. 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. 5. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach prior to the operation of the day care facility. 7. The garage shall not be used for the day care operation. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -9- (6039d) 8. 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. 9. Drop-off and pick-up of children shall be staggered by the applicant to mitigate traffic congestion in the neighborhood. C-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.86-25 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-36, and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-25, is a request to establish a seasonal, overnight -ehicle camping facility of a temporary nature at the Northwest corner of Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Hwy. If approved the facility will ba operated during the summer months between June 1 and September ' of each year. The special permit request is to allow a 5 foot ride landscaped planter in lieu of 10 feet along the Beach Boulevard frontage road. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On March 3, 1986, the City Council Approved Negative Declaration No. 86-5 with conditions. Staff's Recommendation: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 86-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-36 with special permit, based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Cecelia Stuhl, 21462 PCH, Space #401, spoke in opposition to the proposed camping site. She expressed concerns of the residents of the adjacent mobile home park. She stated that there was a need for a planter containing trees next to the chain link fence along the property line to break the noise from the parking area. She also expressed the concerns of the residents pertaining to traffic, security, and sanitation. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Concerns of the Commission were discussed. They felt that this proposed project was not in tune with the redevelopment efforts -since it did not comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Several issues such as.safety, sanitation, visual appearance and traffic had not been properly addressed. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -10- (6039d) I I A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-25 WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-36: 1. The proposed camping facility should set an example for the community by complying with all ordinances and provisions the City would require of any private developer proposing a similar use. 2. The proposed camping facility is not consistent with the CZ suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan and other provisions f the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property because of a substandard planter width along Beach Boulevard. 3. Extended stay of recreational vehicle camping would necessitate a dump station, not included in the proposed plans. 4. The proposed circulation plan puts day parking through the extended stay parking area therefore creating an unsafe situation. 5. The visual appearance from Beach Boulevard is deficient (chemical toilets and lack of landscaping in front of recreational vehicle parking). 6. The 8 foot chain link fence proposed for the entire length in front of the existing block wall will present a litter problem. 7. The proposed change from existing overnight camping to an extended 7-day stay concept has not been appropriately analyzed and designed, as well as sanitary issues being properly addressed. Therefore, such a use would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community and visitors in the community. 8. The proposed substandard temporary use is not in tune with the City's redevelopment efforts and does not comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines (specifically pages 45 and 57). 9. An increase of pedestrian (especially unsupervised children) crossing Pacific Coast Highway at Beach Boulevard creates an unsafe situation compounded by the unsignalized crosswalk crossing the right turn lane from Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway. 10. Costs were not properly addressed in the the proposed project such as (realistic etc.). financial analysis for ongoing maintenance costs, PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -11- (6039d) C-14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-29 Code Amendment No. 86-29 is a request to amend Article 980 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to add a new provision to allow the Redevelopment Agency to file for entitlements on behalf of property owners for devlopment projects within redevelopment project areas. It is being processed at the request of the Redevelopment Department to streamline the approval process of redevelopment projects where not all land has been acquired or consolidated for the development site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff's Recommendation: Approve Code Amendment No. 86-29 and recommend adoption by the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Loretta Wolfe, 411 6th Street, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She felt that this was a maneuver to ramrod downtown development projects. She feels the code should be left as is. Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He stated that the property owners were not properly notified of the public hearing and that this was an issue that -would take away the property owner's rights. Chauncey Alexander, 8072 Driftwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He feels that the property owners are not receiving all of the facts on redevelopment projects. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, spoke in oppositin to the code amendment. He feels the Redevelopment department has too many secrets and the property owners are not being properly notified. Sally Alexander, 8072 Driftwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She stated that she felt the property owners should be notified of every redevelopment project proposed. Susan Worthy, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She feels that this is another attempt to speed up redevelopment and to take away the rights of the property owners. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the proposed code amendment. They cited Section 65854 of the Government Code regarding a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to an amendment to a zoning ordinance. They also cited Section 65091 regarding notification of public hearings. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -12- (6039d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO OBTAIN A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING SECTION 65854 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECTION 65091 REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO DENY CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-29 WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erski.ie, Porter, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-29: 1. Reduces the time for property owners to review and respond to proposed projects within their areas. 2. Provides inadequate notification of property owners to proposed projects within redevelopment project areas. 3. Does not support the Council's/Redevelopment Agency's requirements, as outlined in the Redevelopment Plan, to obtain the consent and support of 60% of the property owners owning 60% of the property in the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. 4. Inadequa-te analysis and assessments of potential impacts. 5. Unnecessary granting of power to the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -13 - (6039d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 CONCEPTUAL D A Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12, a 114 unit senior apartment complex located on Springdale and Edinger was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on April 2, 1986. Condition of Approval number 2 (a) for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12 required that the applicant have the Planning Commission review and approve a conceptual landscape plan for the project. The applicant is proposing to use a pilaster type construction on the 8 foot block wall, with small puddle footings running in between the deeply sunk pilasters. This method of construction will insure that the Cherry Laurel trees have adequate room to grow in tnis location. The applicant will hire a civil or structural engineer to design and engineer the eight foot block wall. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P-" PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -14- (6039d) 11 I- E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A LEGAL OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD SUPERCEDE THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (WHICH IS THE ZONING FOR THAT AREA), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PENDING ITEMS LIST Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, LARGE VACATION BOATS BEING STORED ON STEWART SOUTH OF GARFIELD AVENUE - Would like to know the original ate of prosecution. ILLEGAL HORSE STALLS ALONG GOLDENWEST - Now there are dirt piles appearing in this same area. -What-is being done? G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Porter complemented the City of Santa Ana on their effort to clean up their signage. He then requested staff to take a look at the signage and photograph the two new fast-food signs (Jack=In-The-Box and Pioneer Chicken) that appear on -Harbor Boulevard (southwest corner) near 5th. Street for future reference. The Commission referred staff to the Gateway Plan in the Downtown Design Guidelines. It shows the area being considered for RV parking as a primary gateway. They also referred staff to the Street Tree Plan involving this same area. Commission may consider appealing Conditional Exception No. 86-54 (item approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments). They requested that staff obtain more specific information regarding the project so that they could review it. It was requested that staff request the appropriate department to have the meeting of September 9, 1986, televised. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -15- (6039d) I. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Livengood announced the scheduled meetings for September: September 2, 1986 - Joint Study Session with City Council Downtown Redevelopment - Project Area Committees) - 5:30 PM September 3, 1986 - Regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting - M September 9, 1986 - Study Session (Precise Plan of Street Alignment - Project Committtees) - 6:00 PM September 9, 1986 - Scheduled adjourned Planning Commission meeting - 7:00 PM September 16, 1986 - Regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting - PM A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHL., TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:20 TO THE JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 AT 5:30 PM AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1986, AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Tom Liven od, Cha rma n PC Minutes - 8/26/86 -16- (6039d)