Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-13Approved as Amended April 3, 1979 MINUTES JOINT MEETING HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AND HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Higgins, Russell, Cohen, Paone PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Milkovich, Jean, Harman, Andreassen REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None Secretary Palin noted that a quorum was present for each Commission. Secretary Palin entertained nominations for Chairman Pro Tempore due to the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Paone nominated Commissioner Higgins as Chairman Pro Tempore. There being no further nominations, Secretary Palin closed the nominations and called for the vote: AYES: Russell, Cohen, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Finley, Stern, Bazil ABSTAIN: Higgins Commissioner Higgins assumed the role of Chairman Pro Tempore of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: RECONSIDERATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 78-73 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 79-554 Applicant: James L. Foxx To permit a lot line adjustment and the remodeling of an existing structure and the construction of a new structure on contiguous properties located on the northwest corner of 17th Street and Olive Avenue. Minutes; HOB, Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Two Secretary Palin gave a brief history of the two proposals stating that the Planning Commission had sustained the Board of Zoning Adjustments in its denial of the applications at its March 6, 1979 meeting. However, in light of another meeting with the applicant, he is proposing to revise his plans to meet Ordinance Code requirements. ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY COHEN USE PERMIT NO. 78-73 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 79-554 WERE RECONSIDERED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Cohen NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil ABSTAIN: Paone Commissioner Paone noted that he is withdrawing his previous abstention and will participate in the discussion and vote on these items, since further investigation has determined that no conflict of interest exists. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney, made the Commission aware that the applications could be continued to a future date. Commissioner Cohen suggested a postponement of the applications to allow the full Commission to be present. Secretary Palin advised the Commission that the applicant's revised plan reflects Ordinance Code conformance in that the use of a reciprocal easement has been integrated into the plan. To satisfy the requirement of a one space reduction in parking, the applicant has proposed to reduce the building size to 4,500 square feet, which now makes it a viable building for the site. Two alternatives were presented by the applicant with overlays shown, and it was the staff's suggestion that the plan incorporating the reciprocal easement be chosen by the Commission. Staff concurred with pro- posed lot split which would eliminate a three (3) foot area that would be existing between the new building and the existing struc- ture. Elevations were to remain as depicted; however, the increase in the second floor plaza area would be changed, and it was sug- gested that a condition of approval be imposed that the building square footage on lots 1 and 3 be reduced to 4,500 square feet. Further Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY COHEN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 79-554 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 79-554 - FINDINGS 1. The consolidation of four lots into two parcels for purposes of developing a commercial office complex is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Three 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for General Commercial, which allows commercial office buildings, was placed on subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifi- cations on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 79-554 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCELS FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department on January 29, 1979, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with, and approved by, the Depart- ment of Public Works, and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. The Alley and street radius of 17th and Olive Streets shall be dedicated to City standards at the time said parcels are developed. 4. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department. 5. Vehicular access rights on 17th Street shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Parking space located on Lot 3 adjacent to Lot 5 shall be the parking space designated for Lot 5 use. An easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits desig- nating said parking space, ingress/egress and pedestrian access to accommodate this parking arrangement. AYES: Higgins, Russell, Cohen, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY COHEN USE PERMIT NO. 78-73 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Four USE PERMIT NO. 78-73 - FINDINGS 1. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of a Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. USE PERMIT NO. 78-73 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received March 2, 1979, shall be the approved layout, subject to the modifi- cations described herein: a. Building located on lots 1 and 3 shall be reduced to a total of 4,500 square feet. b. The revised parking layout submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1979, shall be the approved parking layout. 2. The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board: a. Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The driveway approaches along 17th Street shall be removed. 2. If a lot line adjustment is proposed, a tentative parcel map shall be filed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Final parcel map shall be recorded Drior to certificate of occupancy being granted. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Five AYES: Higgins, Russell, Cohen, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil Mr. Warren James, representative for James Foxx, was present and addressed the Commission. He requested withdrawal of Conditional Exception No. 79-4, due to the fact that his proposal was now in conformance with the Ordinance Code. Commission concurred with withdrawal. PLANNING COMMISSION AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DISCUSSION: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SENIOR HOUSING AND RECREATION FACILITIES AT OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE Stephen Kohler addressed the Commission and suggested that after further review and interviews with the proponents, the Commissions make their recommendations to the City Council. Also, Mr. Snow from Urban Projects was present to answer any questions the Com- missions might have. Mr. Kohler suggested that at the conclusion of each proponent's presentation and appropriate interview period, they be allowed to leave the building. Again, the proponents will be called in alphabetical order as had been done' previously. Mr. Snow addressed the Commissions and stated that he had prepared a memo evaluating each proponent's financial aspects and how they differ from each other.. He qualified his memo by stating that the figures presented are not final estimates but are rough guidelines for initial feasibility. Mr. Snow then reviewed each of the four proponent's financial proposals and gave the Commissions some direction on what explanations and what further clarifications are necessary to present a clearer overall view of the proposals, namely different methods of financing and the feasibility of each. Commissioner Milkovich questioned Mr. Snow regarding potential referendum and Mr. Snow cited two examples. In the Ring Brothers proposal, 49 percent, or 88 units, will be reserved for Section 8 certificate holders, less than a majority of the total project and therefore, not subject to Article XXXIV. In the Toman Company proposal, 100 units were made available to existing Section 8 certificate holders, comprising over 50 percent of the project and bringing in the question of Article XXXIV referendum. Mr. Milkovich further inquired about the handicapped requirements in the residential portion of the proposal. It was noted that ten percent of handicapped units is acceptable. Mr. Kohler stated that the proponents had been made aware of this percentage. Mr. Kohler, in answer to Commissioner Milkovich's question regarding off-street parking, stated that the parking ratio of one space per three units had been adopted from previous experience, in- cluding the Wycliffe Gardens project. Earthquake standards were Minutes; H,B. Planning & Redeyelppment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Six discussed and it was concluded that the City must abide by the 1976 Uniform Building Code, and all requirements of that code must be adhered to. c4 GOLDRICH KEST Mr. Manny Aftergut and Mr. Bergman, Design Architect were present. Mr. Bergman addressed himself to the commercial component of the proposal. He stated that parking could be provided for the com- mercial use; however, it was not his intention to create a retail success, rather the proposal was directed towards providing com- mercial services in the absence of such uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The developer was willing to abandon said on -site services once they were established elsewhere in the immediate area. Mr. Aftergut was asked if he could provide units in addition to the proposed 135 units. In answer, Mr. Aftergut stated that four additional units could be provided if the commercial aspect of the proposal were abandoned, and a total of 22 additional units could be provided if the building configuration were altered. Additional sketches of potential completion of the project were presented. In answer to Commissioner Russell's question, Mr. Aftergut said that his company did not intend to run the commer- cial portion, but would explore using the expertise of a qualified entrepreneur. In regard to time estimates, Mr. Aftergut stated that not counting underlying aspects, setting up financing would require approximately 4 to 6 months, and completion of the project 12 months after financing is secured. Loans and interest rates and their availability in future time was discussed. Mr. Bergman reviewed the renderings where the additional units were to be placed, and vehicular traffic between library and balance of project was discussed. In answer to Commissioner Harman's question regarding an increase in operating expense; Mr. Aftergut said that the burden of additional expense would be funded partly by HUD and partly absorbed by the tenant. Mr. Aftergut then addressed himself to the security system of the residential portion of the project and detailed the exact security system to be provided. Commissioner Higgins questioned the proponent as to whether alter- native financing has been explored. Mr. Aftergut noted that a project of this magnitude was not financible under conventional financing, and expressed certainty that some type.of governmental financing was necessary, citing the SB 99 program as the most feasible. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Seven In answer to Commissioner Cohen's question as to what this project would cost the City, Mr. Aftergut answered that staff time would be the greatest expense burden on the City. Secretary Palin asked the proponent what he had proposed after the expiration of the 55 year lease. Mr. Aftergut stated that after 55 years, the improvements would revert back to the City. In answer to how taxes were computed, Mr. Aftergut said that the evaluation was made at Proposition 13 rates, and he is not assuming tax relief and would pay taxes based upon the possessory interest value on the ground lease and improvements. Mr. Snow asked the proponent, in the event there was a time delay in the acquisition of SB 99 or CHFA financing, he would be willing to commence with construction utilizing interim financing until the SB 99 issue can be resolved. Mr. Aftergut stated that the firm would be willing to use interim financing, depending on the technicality of acquiring the SB 99 or CHFA financing. Chairman Pro Tempore Higgins thanked the proponents for Gold - rich Kest for time and effort spent on their proposal. THE LYON COMPANY Mr. Brian Norcadias and Mr. Cotton were present to represent the proponent. Commissioner Milkovich questioned the inclusion of the clock tower, and Mr. Cotton stated that it was used purely as a sculptural aspect and will be utilized only if affordable. Architectural lines in respect to roofs were discussed and it was noted that the roof textures are proposed to be tied together with color and landscaping. In answer to whether to add or delete units to the proposa, Mr. Norcadias stated that he was comfortable with the number of units proposed and did not wish to alter that aspect of the proposal. In answer to Commissioner Russell's question as to whether a profit could still be made after one year operation, Mr. Norcadias stated that increase in costs ties in with rents and that over a period of time rents would be increased; however, the proposal is still projected to be feasible. Mr. Norcadias apprised the Commissions that the proposal reflects current realistic construction costs and that he is looking forward to mid -summer 1980 occupancy. Actual construction was projected to require approximately nine months. Coastal Commission ap- proval is not expected to be a problem; however, Mr. Norcadias stated that City support would help in obtaining such approval in approximately 6 to 8 weeks. Mr. Cotton also emphasized the importance of community support when the project is presented to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Cotton detailed the handicapped Minutes; H.B, Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Eight facilities in all aspects of the proposal for the Commissions. He further detailed the commercial aspect where a pharmacy, coffee shop, beauty shop, etc. are proposed for the service of the residents in the complex. Mr. Cotton then described the handicapped facilities in the residential portion of the project and pointed out that all handicapped facilities will be developed to HUD standards. Commissioner Cohen questioned the type of financing to be utilized by the developer. Mr. Norcadias outlined their proposed financing as attempting to achieve his goals of maximum assisted units and keeping rent as low as possible. 49 percent CHFA and 51 percent existing Section 8 certificate holder occupancy is proposed, thereby creating 100 percent assisted rental units. Mr. Norcadias further stated that this proposal would not entail any hidden expenses to the City of Huntington Beach other than what is indi- cated in their proposal. In answer to Commissioner Harman's question, Mr. Norcadias summed up the facelift proposed for the existing library with details depicted on the rendering. Commissioner Harman expressed concern over the perimeter wall being too extensive for the project. Mr. Cotton stated that they were attempting to provide something physical to tie the project together; however, there is a great deal of flexibility in the proposal. The security system was explained in detail by Mr. Cotton. In answer to Commissioner Higgins' questions regarding availabiltiy of CHFA financing, Mr. Norcadias stated that he foresees no short- age of available funds for this fiscal year and if for any reason CHFA financing could not be provided, the Lyon Company would pursue conventional financing at that time. Secretary Palin asked the proponent what he plans after the expiration of the 55 year lease as to ownership of the structure and the possessory interest as far as taxes are concerned and whether the rent structure takes this possessory interest into consideration. Mr. Norcadias stated that ownership would revert to City and tax allowances have been included. Mr. Norcadias detailed dispersement of green and open space, arts and crafts area, and other recreational facilities proposed. The proponent was asked whether, if there was a delay with financing in this pilot program, he would be willing to continue with construction while the referendum issue was being resolved. Mr. Norcadias indicated that he anticipated no extensive delay in theproject; however, if there were delays, he was willing to go forward without full authorization on the government financing. Commissioner Higgins thanked the Lyon Company for their time and effort spent on this outstanding proposal. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Nine RING BROTHERS Mr. Gary Thompson was present for the proponent. He stated that he had submitted additional information to staff regarding a breakdown of construction costs. He further introduced Mr. , Cetta, the architect, and Mr. Saunders, Comptroller for his firm. Commissioner Milkovich questioned the proponent as to the reason for the, number of two -bedroom units proposed. Mr. Thompson stated that it would be more economically feasible for two people sharing a two bedroom apartment, than one person having his own apartment. However, if desirable, three one -bedroom apartments could be placed where now two two -bedroom units are proposed. Mr. Thompson further stated that through experience, two bedroom units were highly sought after for these economic reasons. Mr. Cetta addressed the Commissions and noted that in the two -bedroom units, each bedroom has its own private bath, and this would make the units more desirable. Commissioner Milkovich stated concern over the long residential corridor as proposed. Mr. Thompson recognized the problem and indicated that the proposal was only in the drawing stage and would require further improvement. The proponent was questioned as to what type of financing was pro- posed for the project. Mr. Saunders addressed the Commissions and presented the proposed financing. He stated that his firm was not proposing any type of take out financing but that financing is proposed to be in two phases; 1) a construction loan, and 2) long- term financing that would be secured at the best possible rate during the construction time. Mr. Saunders further clarified that Ring Brothers had been using Union Bank for the financing of various projects, and assured the Commissions of their repu- tation and credit line in the financing aspect. In terms of higher costs in the future, Mr. Saunders stated that the firm was willing to hold costs in the foreseeable future; however, he could not guarantee costs in the long-term. Ring Brothers could respond quickly and make rapid commitments to secure and protect financing available to them by Union Bank at a 13 percent construction loan. If at a future point a financial problem occurs, Ring Brothers would be willing to syndicate the project at that time to protect the commitment. In answer to Commissioner Jean's question regarding construction time, Mr. Saunders stated that Ring Brothers would be ready to start construction within three months, with the actual con- struction time being 9 to 12 months. Mr. Thompson detailed the facelift for the library. He stated that the existing structure is a viable one and that improvements would be made to lighting, ceiling, and proposed other architectural facelifts. He indicated his experience with interior design but concluded that the structure will basically remain the same with ample improvements. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Ten In answer to Commissioner Russell's question regarding what would happen if Coastal Commission feels not enough low and moderate income housing is included in the proposal, Mr. Saunders stated that until the Coastal Commission approves the project, Ring Brothers won't really know what conditions will be imposed. If the Coastal Commission did put contingencies on the project, amenities could be reduced and income could be equated to expenses. In answer to Commissioner Russell's question regarding profit, Mr. Saunders stated that if his firm is selected, the City can stipulate the amount of subsidized units to be provided in the project and a method of controlling changes in the rent structure could be provided in the lease agreement. An arrangement can be stipulated in the final lease agreement whereby profit will be returned into the project.. Profit margin could be stipulated and profit over and above an agreed upon return on the investment could be turned back into the project. Mr. Saunders did not preclude government financing on the project. However, he attempted to minimize time delays. In answer to Commissioner Cohen's question regarding why conven- tional financing was chosen rather than governmental financing, Mr. Saunders stated that through conventional financing, the project could commence immediately. He further stated that governmental programs took as much as 18 to 24 months for approval. Commissioner Andreassen questioned the social and physical ameni- ties of the project, i.e., size of open space, etc. Mr. Cetta outlined the open space areas and further detailed the recreation aspects of the project. Secretary Palin asked the proponent what he had proposed after the expiration of the 55 year lease as to ownership of the structure and the possessory interest as far as taxes are con- cerned and whether the rent structure takes this possessory interest into consideration. Mr. Saunders stated that the project would assume City ownership after 55 years and that rent structures did take into consideration possessory interest tax. Mr. Thompson concluded by stating that he was willing to work with Commissions and staff to comprise a plan of which the City would be proud. Commissioner Higgins thanked Ring Brothers for their time and effort placed into their fine proposal. THE TOMAN COMPANY Mr. Warren Toman addressed the Commissions and introduced Mr. Rick Coleman and Mr. Dean as part of his team. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Eleven Commissioner Paone questioned the proponent whether his proposed parking layout has flexibility. Mr. Toman stated that it was his intention to separate the senior citizen residential portion of the project from the highly active senior center and library. Mr. Coleman, the design architect, further discussed the parking situation pointing out that more parking than required had been provided. He further said that it was their intent to keep the cost of the project down, and therefore, felt that parking location from a functional point of view, would keep the resi- dential portion isolated from the daytime use of the library and senior recreation center. However, more green open space could be provided in lieu of the parking and perhaps by the elimination of some units if so desired. Commissioner Paone questioned why the proponent had not proposed any commercial for the project. Mr. Toman stated that due to sufficient commercial in the surrounding neighborhood, the proposal did not require on -site commercial uses, and therefore, the space could be put to more important uses such as additional units. In response to Commissioner Milkovich's question whether the proponent has someone in mind to manage the units, Mr. Toman stated that he has chosen Monarch Management Firm, which is a small personalized firm, to manage the units. It was noted that the studio apartments proposed had no eating area. Mr. Coleman stated that by rearranging the furniture, an eating area could be provided, and if desired, the kitchen bar top could be lowered to accommodate regular chairs. The pro- ponents were further questioned as to what sound attenuation is provided between several of the studio units and the subterranean parking. Mr. Coleman said that the units would be divided by a 2-1/2 foot deep storage area providing two walls between the units and cars, and that any anticipated sound problem could be handled at the time of construction of the wall. Commissioner Cohen asked when would construction commence if the Toman Company were chosen. Mr. Toman answered that normal construction time would run about 9 to 12 months. Mr. Toman further stated in regard to rental and construction costs pro- jections, that the rental rates in the future should remain stable if the economy flatens out. Mr. Snow asked the proponent whether the project will still be feasible as proposed if costs rise during the construdtion. Mr. Toman stated that it would be feasible since he is allowinq a cushion of 10 to 15 nercent increase. He was -proposing that on a project of this size an 18 month construction loan would be secured, which would give approximately two years time to secure a lower interest conventional loan for remainder of construction. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Twelve Mr. Toman further indicated that if it is the desire of the City to commence financing through CHFA, that would be the type of financing the Toman Company would secure; however, the project could commence at a much more rapid pace if conventional financing were utilized. Secretary Palin asked the proponent what he had proposed after the expiration of the 55 year lease as to ownership of the structure and the possessory interest as far as taxes are con- cerned and whether the rent structure takes this possessory interest into consideration. Mr. Toman stated that at this time, the City would not assume the lease after 55 years, and that this point would affect the proposal; the use tax would be included into the economics. Commissioner Andreassen questioned the proponent as to what activities were provided in the open space areas and what is the square footage of the green area. Mr. Coleman described the recreational activities, i.e., jacuzzi, barbecue, gazebo, potting shed, greenhouse, etc. and calculated the open space green area as approximately 35,000 square feet. Mr. Toman concluded by stating that it was their intention to stay with the criteria as outlined as closely as possible and that his company had the staff time, ability, and the desire to work with staff to create a viable project. Commissioner Higgins thanked the Toman Company for a good proposal to the Senior Citizen Housing Project. COMMISSIONS DISCUSSION: Secretary Palin suggested that the Commissions evaluate the proposals and recommend one or two choices to the City Council, with a preference. Commission discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commissions that the William Lyon Company far surpasses all others. ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY PAONE, THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY WAS SELECTED AS FIRST CHOICE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS BEING THE PROPONENT FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Cohen, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil Secretary Palin stated that the three absent Planning Commissioners (Stern, Finley, Bazil) had contacted him and wished to convey their first choice as being the William Lyon Company. The three absent Commissioners had indicated that they will submit written comments to that affect. Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Thirteen ON MOTION BY MILKOVICH AND SECOND BY ANDREASSEN, THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY WAS SELECTED AS FIRST CHOICE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AS BEING THE PROPONENT FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Milkovich, Jean, Harman, Andreassen NOES: None ABSENT: None The Chair entertained a motion for second choice. Commissioner Paone preferred Ring Brothers as second choice due to their proposals as to making the project economically feasible. It was also noted that a portion of the Commission was impressed with the financial clout of the Ring Brothers Company. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY COHEN TO SELECT RING BROTHERS AS THE SECOND CHOICE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROPOSAL. Commissioner Russell expressed concern over a statement made by Mr. Saunders, the Comptroller for Ring Brothers, that if the project becomes financially unfeasible, the project would then be syndicated (perhaps a cash buyer). Commissioner Russell felt that the company lacked a commitment to the project and the community. Mr. Stephen Kohler clarified that Ring Brothers was brought into the project at a later date and therefore, did not have the same amount of time to develop their plan; therefore, time had not permitted the pursuit of various other alternatives. VOTE: AYES: Paone, Higgins NOES: Russell, Cohen ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil THE MOTION FAILED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COHEN TO SELECT GOLDRICH KEST AS THE SECOND CHOICE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROPOSAL. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. ON MOTION BY ANDREASSEN AND SECOND BY HARMAN, THE RING BROTHERS COMPANY WAS SELECTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AS BEING THE SECOND CHOICE FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Milkovich, Harman, Andreassen, Jean NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Fourteen It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to reconsider their motion. ON MOTION BY COHEN AND SECOND BY PAONE THE RING BROTHERS COMPANY WAS SELECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS BEING THE SECOND CHOICE FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Cohen, Paone NOES: Russell ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil It was the consensus of both the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission to inform the Council;that the Lyon Company was selected as being a far superior proposal from the other proponents. Commissioner Russell stated that the reason he was not changing his vote for second choice to the Ring Brothers Company was that he felt they were not making a 55 year commitment to the community. Mr. Kohler then informed the Commissions that their recommendations would be forwarded to the Council for their meeting of March 19th, then setting a tentative date of March 26 for Council Questioning of the proponent and perhaps April 2 for making their choice. Mr. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney, stated that these pro- posals have not been processed through the City Attorney's Office as yet, and that legal aspects would have to be analyzed. Mr. O'Connor stated that he would submit his comments to the City Attorney, and that it was then her prerogative to transmit those findings to the Council. THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED. REVIEW OF FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-24 The findings of Zone Change No. 78-24 submitted by the Planning Department for the Commission's review were discussed and approved. Additional information for Zone Change 78-24 was discussed and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Council should be made aware of the rationale of the Commission when it approved the land use designation for this area in its consideration of General Plan Amendment 79-1A. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE IN THE TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE COMMISSION'S REASONS FOR PLACING AN M1 DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Cohen, Russell, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil Minutes: H.B. Planning & Redevelopment Commissions Tuesday, March 13, 1979 Page Fifteen ON MOTION BY COHEN AND SECOND BY RUSSELL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:00 A.M. BY THE FOLLOWING NOTE: AYES: Higgins, Cohen, Russell, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Stern, Finley, Bazil ames W. Palin, Secretary 1 :gc j C airman Pro T re Higgins Planning Commission L4alkv� - kMilkovich, Chairman Redevelopment Commission