Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-21Approved: October 2, 1979 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1979 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Bazil, Paone COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Cohen The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Tim Paone. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY STERN THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CON- SISTING OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF EXPIRATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9843, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 79-2 (Continued from August 7, 1979) Applicant: Old World Homeowners Association To permit erection of an internally illuminated sign 8' x 25' x 65' and a 10 ft. diameter globe 12 ft. high located at 7561 Center Drive, north side of the street within Old World Village. Savoy Bellavia described the application, pointing out that the appli- cation had been continued from the August 7, 1979 meeting because the Commission desired clarification on two items, one being whether an application for a permit on behalf of a Homeowners' Association, or any other incorporated association, may be made in the name of a person authorized to act on behalf of that association rather than in the name of the association itself; and the other being an interpretation of procedures necessary to allow removal of a part of any condominium project (i.e., the existing sign on the development) and relocation to another site. He further stated that a letter has been received from the Homeowners' Association allowing Ms. Hoertner to represent the association in this request, also, staff has reviewed the proposed project to the east and found that the proposed sign would be visible if the project to the east were constructed according to original approval, however, Mr. Bellavia stated that the developer to the east had indicated possible re- visions to his proposal, thereby creating the possibility of eliminating ample vision of the proposed sign. Mr. Bellavia indicated that the applicant was prepared at this time to discuss alternative site loca- tion with the Commission. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Two The continued public hearing was reopened. Ms. Hoertner addressed the Commission and stated that she was a resident/shop owner of Old World which consists of 55 shops all being merchants and residents of Old World, however, due to lack of business, and most people having invested a great deal in their shops, the families had to seek other employment to maintain their shops in Old World. She further stated that the proposed sign would be very beneficial in allowing traffic from the freeway, surrounding arterial streets, and the Huntington Center to identify the location of the specialty center. Mr. Hoertner further cited funds that have been expended in television advertising, however, later discovered that due to people being unable to find the center, great business losses were incurred. The entire Homeowners' Associ- ation discussed the type of sign required and voted as a whole on a sign they felt would be the best design and serve the overall purpose of proper visibility. She cited economic hardship due to a loss of ten percent of shopowners to'date because -of poor busi- ness. Slides from various angles from which the sign would be visible were shown. Ms. Hoertner concluded her presentation by stating that it was her opinion that the proposed sign would generate additional business to the center which would in turn create additional tax dollars to Huntington Beach as well as allowing the present -shop owner to continue in their business. Commissioner Russell questioned what the Association planned to do with existing signs. Ms. Hoertner stated that -two of the existing signs were deteriorating badly, and would be removed, a wrought iron sign provided by the builder was also deteriorating and would be removed, a 10 ft. globe, professionally painted would be pro- vided in its place. In essence, Ms. Hoertner stated that they pro- posed to takedown three homemade signs and replacing them with two professional signs. Mr. Paul S. Taylor of San Pedro Sign Company addressed the Commission. He stated that the sign would have good visibility from the freeway and surrounding arterial highways. He offered an alternative whereby only the letters of the proposed sign could light up, however, this would reduce visibility, and since the stores are open until .9 p.m., the internal illumination is beneficial in sign visibility. Commissioner Higgins questioned whether the 65 foot height was ample for visibility off the freeway. Mr. Taylor stated that a higher sign (approx. 80 feet) would be even more beneficial, however, the 65 ft. proposed sign would be greatly beneficial. The public hearing was closed. u Minutes: H.B, Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Three Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Russell stated that he was convinced that a financial hardship existed, and noted that the center would be eliminating two existing signs, thereby additional signs would not be created by approval of this application. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RUSSELL TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 79-2 WITH FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. STERN SECONDED THE MOTION WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINDINGS. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Stern cited additional findings to the proposed Special Sign Permit and amended the motion to allow an 80 foot sign height. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL WITHDREW HIS MOTION FOR SAKE OF DISCUSSION REGARDING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. The height of the proposed sign was further discussed. An 80 foot versus the proposed 65 foot sign was reiterated with Jim Palin stating that the additional 15 feet would not automatically increase business in the center, and that other techniques would have to be utilized to allow a shopping center to be successful. Commissioner Bazil felt that if the visibility was not increased by the additional 15 foot height, that no benefit would be served by the additional footage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RUSSELL AND SECONDED BY STERN TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 79-2 WITH FINDINGS AS OUTLINED. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Paone expressed concern about setting a precedent for the sign height, however, did not wish to penalize the applicant for poor City planning in the past, and further said that the proposal was a unique situation whereby the shopping center was rather isolated and required additional identification. Commissioner Stern further stated that one sign would be serving 55 businesses, which adds to the unique situation. Counsel Jim Georges cited findings the Commission must find accord- ing to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in addition to other findings cited by 'Commission members. THE MOTION MADE BY RUSSELL AND SECONDED BY STERN WAS WITHDRAWN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RUSSELL AND SECONDED BY STERN TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 79-2 WITH FINDINGS AS AMENDED AND OUTLINED BELOW, AND WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 0 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Four FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a sub- stantial economic hardship to the applicant in that ten (10) per- cent of shops have closed in the past few months due to lack of business from inadequate signing. 2. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which justify the granting of the subject request due to lack of visibility, as existing site is incompatible with proper advertising. Current signing would be altered to more closely conform to the intent of the Ordinance Code. 3. The granting of this request will not constitute -a granting of a special privilege in that only two signs would be erected on two ,frontages of the subject center. 4. 'The granting of this request will not be detrimental'to the public welfare. No -obstruction of visibility will occur and it will promote easier identification of the project, thereby, reducing gas consumption and confusion. , 5. The proposed sign would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 6. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of such signs. 7. The proposed sign does not obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic vision. AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT NO. 79-19 Applicant: Church on the Course, C. Beatty, President To permit the operation of a church in an existing building located at 5075 Warner Avenue, north side of Warner, east of Bolsa Chica in an R5 District. Savoy Bellavia stated that he had no additional comments to the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Christopher Beatty, Pastor of the church, addressed the Commission and stated that he was available to answer any questions the Commission 13 may have. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Five Mr. George Latka, owner of the Golden Glove Bar, addressed the Com- mission and stated that he owned the bar adjacent to the proposed church. He said that he had no objection to the proposal, however, he wished to go on record as citing concern about a church operating next to a bar, whereby the noise level might be higher than other uses. The public hearing was ,closed. ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-19 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS• 1. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The subject site is suitable for the proposed use and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plan received and dated July 3, 1979, shall be the approved site plan. 2., The total occupancy shall not exceed ninety (90) persons at any service or function. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this condi- tional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violations of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision to rescind approval shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None A five minute recess was called. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Six GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Medium Density Residential and Planning Reserve to Planned Community for the property generally located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard. (AREA OF CONCERN - Northeast corner of Beach Boule- vard -and Pacific Coast Highway). Chairman Paone stated that he wished to clarify several issues before accepting testimony from the public. Chairman Paone stated that the proposal was not a zone change, that it did not change the specific uses on the property at the present. If rezoning is pursued at a later date, future public hearings would be scheduled. He further stated that the proposed planned community would permit mobilehome' sites on this property, however, it does not guarantee that other development might not be sought at a later date. June Catalano then addressed the Commission. She outlined the boundaries of'.the proposed General Plan Amendment, citing that approximately 63 acres of the site are owned by the Mills Land and Water Company, which authorized Daon Corporation to pursue the amendment. The remainder of the land is publicly owned - 33 acres by Caltrans and 11 acres by the Orange County Flood Control District. She further cited that the site is currently designated medium density residential and Plan ning'Reserve on the Land Use Element, and that the applicant was re- questing a change to Planned Community on the entire site. Currently, the site is zoned for 39 acres of RAO (Residential Manufacturing and Oil" Production); 32 acres of MH (Mobile Home District), and the seven acres of the Flood Control Channel are not zoned. She further stated that the Daon Corporation request was first con- sidered as Land Use Element Amendment 78-1, at which time'the Planning Commission continued the request until the Local Coastal Plan was completed. That schedule has been extended due to staffing shortages and -the applicant has requested that the amendment be considered at this time. Mrs. Catalano further outlined existing uses on the proposed site, and stated that the site is located in close proximity to the downtown area, the City and State beaches, and major transportation routes. There appears to be a high demand for residential uses in tbe`"area; however, she cited a section of the California Coastal Act which states that the use of private lands suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry (Sec. 30222). Mrs. Catalano stated that this requirement does not preclude resi- dential development, but does necessitate that demand for visitor serving facilities be met elsewhere in the coastal zone; the City's Local Coastal Program is currently analyzing potential locations for such facilities. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Seven Economic impacts of the proposed development were outlined by Mrs. Catalano. Housing impacts were discussed and cited as a concern re- lated to the area. The specific uses of land will not be known until a zone change is requested. Residential types are not indicated under the Planned Community designation. The South Coast Regional Coastal Commission staff has indicated that the Commission's intent is to pre- serve existing mobile home parks and that displacement of the units would require a one-to-one replacement of the units within the coastal zone. Another major concern cited by Mrs. Catalano was the environmental issue of location and extent of wetlands on the site. A letter has been received from the Fish and Wildlife Service outlining their concerns. In conclusion, Mrs. Catalano stated that the staff recommends that in view of previous information presented, the amendment request be continued until the Local Coastal Plan is completed (January, 1980), but that the land uses requested for the area be considered in the preparation of the Local Coastal Plan land use plan. The intensity of development on the proposed land was discussed, how- ever, Chairman Paone requested Commission to address themselves to the issue at hand which was a general plan amendment rather than rezoning. Commissioner Stern questioned what percentage of the low cost housing within the City is contained on the property in question. Chairman Paone indicated he did not wish to discuss low cost housing at this time as being irrelevant to the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Russell felt that review of these types of facts must be considered because if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the Commission would not'have another chance to review same prior to review by the Coastal Commission. Chairman Paone stated that he did not wish to display the feeling that people will be displaced from their mobile homes by the approval of this General Plan Amendment, because a General Plan Amend- ment approval does not allow conditions to be placed upon it and that it was not dealing with the Housing Element or a Zone Change but rather with placing a designation upon the property which permits what is there to remain as is. Zoning will stay as is, and it was his concern that people would be misled if further discussion ensued regarding pro- posals that may or may not occur. Commissioner Russell's feeling was that the people in the audience should be given a chance to express themselves as to how the amendment may relate to them. Commissioner Stern stated that a change to the land use element of the General Plan is being discussed, which change must be consistent with all elements of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. Mr. Palin discussed the current status of the Housing Element at this time. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Eight Commissioner Bazil stated that he wanted to listen to the public, how- ever, he also wanted it be known that the action before the Commission was that of a General Plan Amendment, not a zone change or displacement of any homes. Commissioner Stern again questioned the percentage of low cost housing within the City contained on the property in question. Bill Holman, staff member, stated that census results show that 235 or 62 percent of the mobilehomes were occupied by lower income families, which constitutes two percent of the City's low income housing. Commissioner Stern questioned the difference between Planning Reserve and Planned Community in that Chairman Paone stated that the developer was looking for a sign from the City that it was interested in develop- ment. Commissioner Stern then stated that a -full application, as indicated by the Planning Commission designation should be submitted by applicant to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action on this item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN TO TABLE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 TO ALLOW SUBMISSION OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO PLANNED COMMUNITY. Motion failed for lack of second. Chairman Paone stated that ultimately there will be a development pro- posal on the subject property; however, the General Plan Amendment does not change the zoning on the property. A moratorium on the property was proposed in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment to provide greater security to the residents of the mobilehome park and delay development. The public hearing was opened. Mr. ,David Neish of Urban Assist was present to represent the Daon Corporation, possible developer of the subject site. Mr. Neish pre- sented th8 background of the Daon Corporation and listed their exper- tise in development. He stated that Daon could provide a high quality development for the site that would be beneficial to the City of Huntington Beach and which other developers could not provide. He said that Daon had submitted a request for General Plan Amendment for property designated on the 106 acre parcel and that due to the Local Coastal Program, a review of the request had been delayed to April, 1979 for completion of LCP. Daon representatives have monitored the LCP, and have attended all of the LCP meetings, however, completion of the LCP has now been targeted to January, 1980. He outlined further time constraints necessary for approval of the General Plan Amendment and felt that a decision was now due. He stated the Daon Corporation should not be penalized due to the LCP not being completed'as scheduled. Mr. Neish further stated that if the proposal was approved it was not Daon's intent to abort the LCP process but rather to participate in it. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Nine Mr. Neish agreed to a six month moratorium in which time discussions could ensue on issues of this parcel with staff and residents. He could not commit himself to ultimate development. He stated that it was possible that the mobilehome park may remain. It is also possible that some sort of structures may be placed upon the property in place of the mobilehomes; however, it is Daon's goal to provide affordable housing. The preservation of wetlands and relocation of the Orange County F1ood*Control Center will have to be resolved prior to zone change proceedings. Mr. Neish concluded by stating that he was seeking a long-term commit- ment from the City by approval of the General Plan Amendment. The Commission discussed the planning reserve as being a definite commitment for development. A five minute recess was called. Commissioner Stern asked what percent of low-income housing in the City's Coastal Zone this area contained. Staff responded that the trailers represent about 25 percent of this City's low-cost housing within the Coastal Zone. Mr. Alan Berger addressed the Commission and cited seismic problems present in the mobilehome park Huntington By The Sea. He stated that the mobile homes are sitting on a slump area which is similar to quick sand according to core samples. He further stated that the concrete foundation for the mobilehomes have a short life due to dissolving of concrete, and now steel has to be utilized to support the mobile - homes. He felt that due to this factor, it was not possible to build. low cost housing, that due to the type of foundation required for construction of homes, it would prevent inexpensive homes being built. Commissioner Stern questioned how long it took for concrete to dissolve. Mr.. Berger stated that within two - five years, it dissolved and that in less than one year it began to shale away. Mr. Sal Di Stafano addressed the Commission and stated that he lives in Huntington By The Sea Mobile Home Park. He has read General Plan Amendment 79-2 and was left with many questions, i.e., could develop- ment be placed elsewhere where it would not disturb wildlife, and families, even though affordable housing is included. He further stated that people living in the mobile homes have no way of affording low cost housing, even if included in the plan. He further concluded that wetlands, swamps, and marshes would be displaced and stated that he was against the granting of the amendment. Mr. Ken Boel addressed the Commission and stated that he was a resident of Huntington By The Sea!Mobile Home Park. He requested the Commission to give serious considerations to the policies outlined in the General Plan Amendment 79-2 draft. He further stated that he was mainly con- cerned with the 32 acre portion of the land dealing with the mobile - home development. Mr. Boel then read sections of the General Plan Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Ten Amendment for the benefit of those in the audience that did not have a chance to review the document. Mr. Frank Bradley addressed the Commission and cited major improve- ments that have taken place in Huntington By The Sea Mobile Home Park. Mr. Phillip Anderson, resident of Huntington By The Sea Mobile Home Park addressed the Commission and cited problems and costs involved -in the relocation of mobilehomes.. He stated that a frame house, under eminent domain, would be reimbursed for relocation; however, mobile-' home owners do not receive reimbursement for relocation. He concluded by stating that the Daon Corporation would choose an alternative which would give them the most profit, and that this would not include leaving the mobilehome park as is. Mr. Ed Chadowski addressed the Commission and stated that he was a resident in Huntington By The Sea Mobile Home Park. He commented on a good job done by staff on the study and analysis; however, a most important factor was omitted, which is the impact of this General Plan Amendment on the people living in the mobilehomes. Many of the people living in the mobilehome park are age 55 and over, and are retired, widows, etc. living on a limited income. It would be disastrous for those people to be forced to move. He further cited the lack of mobile - home parks in the surrounding area and stated that the ones that are located in the area are full. He then cited the expenses involved in moving the mobilehomes out of the County where space is available. He further said that the potential rezoning has thrown a scare into prospective buyers of mobilehomes in the park, that no one wishes to purchase a mobile home there due to the uncertainty of the situation. Mr. Ed Zschoche addressed the Commission and stated that the General Plan Amendment is not within the best interest of the community. He further stated that the General Plan Amendment guides zone changes and that the proposed planned community designation narrows the choices rather than broaden them. He stated that he is a member of the LCP Citizens Advisory Committee and has not seen a Daon Representative at any of their meetings. He concluded that Daon was in business to make a profit, and that it would not act in the best interest of the people, and that continuing of this application for the completion of the LCP would be the best step to provide the dealing with the issue at hand. Commission discussed the time schedule of the LCP. Steve Coyle addressed the Commission and stated that he resides in Cabrillo Mobile Home Park. His reason for addressing the Commission was to let them know there is another mobilehome park to be considered whereby 45 mobilehomes exist filled with families. The public hearing was closed. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Eleven Commissioner Stern questioned what would be the natural use of the land if the State does not use it. Staff replied that a bill was introduced in the Assembly in March, 1978, whereby the property owned by the State would revert back to the Mills Land and Water Company. Commissioner Stern further questioned whether the developer would agree to a moratorium on the subject property until such time as the LCP was instituted, thereby insuring that there would be no application for permits until the completion of the LCP. Mr. Neish readdressed the Commission and stated that the Daon Corporation could not agree to such an open ended agreement. Chairman Paone sug- gested a moratorium for one year or such time as the LCP was certified, whichever is longer. Mr. Neish stated that the Daon Corporation would stand on their six month agreement. A five minute recess was called. Mr. Neish introduced Chuck Colton of Daon Corporation to the Commission. He stated that he had discussed a longer moratorium with the owners of the property, Mills Land and Water Company, and they were reluctant to allow the moratorium to exceed six months. Commissioner Russell stated that staff had outlined why this General Plan Amendment should be tabled or continued; because the General Plan has no policy statement and no LCP to fall back on, thereby relying totally on the Coastal Commission to review the matter. Commissioner Bazil reiterated that the decision on rezoning will be made at a later date, that at present the only uses in the mobile - home zone are mobilehomes, and that no other structures can be placed upon that property. Aspects of the Environmental Impact Report were discussed. Chairman Paone once again reiterated that zoning was not a matter before the Commission at this time, and that no zoning would be affected at this time. Mr. Colton outlined the steps necessary before a developer can proceed to build and the time constraints involved. Commissioner Bazil explained what a conceptual plan involves. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN AND SECONDED BY RUSSELL TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE GPA 79-2 UNTIL COMPLETION AND CERTIFI- CATION OF THE LCP. VOTE: AYES: Russell, Stern NOES: Higgins, Paone, Bazil ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Twelve THE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Russell said that he had no question as to the integrity of the developer and that a Planned Community designation was the best designation for the property at this time. Discussion ensued regarding the disposition of the proposed General Plan Amendment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 TO ALLOW SIX COMMISSION MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. (WITH COHEN LISTENING TO THE TAPE OF THIS MEETING). MOTION WAS SECONDED BY STERN. Chairman Paone disagreed with that philosophy and stated that he would vote against that motion. VOTE: AYES: Stern, Bazil NOES: Higgins, Russell, Paone ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None THE MOTION FAILED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOWING APPLICANT A CHANCE TO APPEAL THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. VOTE: AYES: Higgins, NOES: Stern ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None Russell, Paone, Bazil Commissioner Stern voted against the motion because he felt the General Plan Amendment had merit, however; he felt a continuance was in order to allow for the completion of the LCP. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 1251 Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending to the City Council a moratorium on the property located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Commissioner Stern asked that the moratorium issue be brought to the attention of the City Council in light of the denial of General Plan Amendment No. 79-2. �1 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Thirteen Jim Palin explained the appeal process to the members of the audience. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN AND SECONDED BY BAZIL THAT IF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 IS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSION WOULD TRANSMIT PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 1251 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, RECOMMENDING A MORATORIUM. VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Paone, Bazil NOES: None ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEMS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City Council meeting of August 20, 1979, reviewed by Secretary Palin for the Commission's information. Secretary Palin discussed a City Attorney's Opinion outlining procedure of replacement of present Planning Commission with individual City Council appointments. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Stern expressed the importance of proper findings in approval or denial of an application, and questioned whether the Commission has been using proper findings. Commissioner Russell expressed his appreciation to the City Council for allowing the continuance of the present Planning Commission to remain in tact until a new Commission is appointed. Commissioner Russell felt that a communication from the Commission as a whole should be transmitted to the Council expressing their willing- ness to serve on the Commission until new appointments are made. Commissioner Stern thanked the Staff for an outstanding staff report prepared on General Plan Amendment No. 79-2. ITEMS DISTRIBUTED: Secretary Palin presented a letter from the Orange County Transit District to the Commission regarding the transportation corridor proposed. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL, MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:15 AM - TO A REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1979. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 21, 1979 Page Fourteen Tim Paone, Chairman :gc i`i 1 I.