Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-21MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher (7:15) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Greer, Kenefick CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1980, AND CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-15, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer Porter, Greer REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-29 Applicant: Barry and Joanne Briggs To permit the use a an existing building of over 2500 square feet as a weight training center located in Units 51, 52, and 53 of the Seacliff Village shopping center at Main Street and York- town Avenue. Staff reported no additional information, and the public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed use, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-29 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 2 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use substantially complies with the applicable pro- visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The proposed use will generally be compatible with surrounding land uses and onsite parking will not be impacted by the pro- posed use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated September 25, 1980, shall be the approved layout. 2. Signing for the use shall be subject to the requirements of the approved sign program for the shopping center. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this con- ditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Porter COASTAL ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont. from October 7, 1980) Consideration of the downtown section of the Coastal Element, a State -mandated plan which will be an addition to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. June Catalano described three alternative proposals which have been worked out by staff and the Local Coastal Program -Citizens Advisory Committee. These proposals have tried to combine technical planning aspects and the constraints of the downtown area with the expressed public desires concerning the downtown development. Alternative I is a low -intensity, village atmosphere; Alternative II presents a more urban character for the downtown; and Alternative III is the highest intensity land use proposed. Both II and III propose multi- story construction ( 6 stories in II and 12 stories in III, with the first block inland from Pacific Coast Highway limited to 3 stories to lessen visual and traffic impacts.) Ms. Catalano outlined the recreation, visitor -serving, office/professional, and residential uses proposed for each alternative. Commissioner Bauer pointed out that before selecting any of the alt- ernatives the City must consider how to provide transportation and parking for the area; also of vital importance is the question of where the financing for surface street improvement and public tran- sit will be found. -2- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 3 Ms. Catalano referred to a technical memo addressing these prob- lems which had previously been submitted; this memo had con- sidered funding the improvements partially by a parking assessment district. She added that the memo had been submitted to Public Works, and that department reports that no basic constraints exist in the downtown which would preclude implementation of any one of the proposed alternatives. The public hearing was opened. The following persons addressed the Commission with the following comments: Doug Langemin, 8196 Nantucket Drive: Mr. Langemin expressed preference for the Alternative I plan. He suggested two additions: 1) use of a theme, such as "Seacoast Village" or a Downtown Main Street circa 1910; 2) Inclusion of a residential area close in, so that a certain percentage of buildings could be owner/resident use, with an owner living above his shop. Frank Mola, 808 Adams Avenue: Mr. Mola stated that in order to achieve the highest and best use of the area to accomplish coastal goals (which in his opinion seem to be directed toward allowing maximum use of the coastal area), large expenditures in the down- town area are needed, and the present development constraints provide landowners no incentive to expend such funds. Good devel- opment depends upon density, and the City should make a total commitment in the area to provide landowners with the incentive to develop and upgrade their properties. He recommended Alternative II or III or possibly a mix of the two with sufficient density to attract quality development. Ken Flint, 408 loth Street: Mr. Flint said that the best alter- native would be Alternative I; he objected to any high density along the coast or through the Main Street area, saying that traffic would increase as a result of any one of the proposals. Bob Terry, Chairman of the Downtown Committee: Mr. Terry des- cribed the study this committee has made of the downtown, which resulted in a motion that the area be developed as a mixed use containing hotels, motels, restaurants, places of entertainment, office, specialty commercial, and residential. The committee also voted to recommend deletion of all reference to height lim- itation, addition of a provision to allow additional office and residential above the first floors, and encouragement of a height limit greater than three stories for a hotel in the area. He emphasized that an alternative must be selected which will be economically feasible to implement. Lance Jacot, 215 Crest Avenue: Mr. Jacot advocated support of the Alternative I proposal, saying that he has found virtually unanimous support for such an approach and unanimous opposition to a high density, urban -like environment. Nancy Aldridge, 406 llth Street: Ms. Aldridge cited the problems which have resulted in the downtown through the construction of -3- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.H. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 4 fourplexes and other higher density developments in the Townlot areas, problems which she says are compounded by absentee ownership. She also discussed police problems and the earthquake hazard con- struction of highrise in the downtown might cause. It was Ms. Ald- rich`s conclusion that the people in the area would prefer Alterna- tive I. Gloria Hemsley, 6902 Seaway: Ms. Hemsley cited the need for park- ing facilities, which she said had not been addressed in any of the alternative plans. She is also concerned that the future buildings be compatible with what is presently constructed and that it is imperative that the Commission make a decision as to height limit. Gary Turman, 5112 Briarhill Drive, Yorba Linda: Mr. Turman informed the Commission that the City has inadequate facilities for the people who already visit the area, and care must be taken that any- thing that is decided upon will still be adequate to handle visitors 5 or 10 years in the future. Charles Case, 810 Palm Avenue: Mr. Case said that it is critical to the lives and sense of wellbeing of the citizens of the area that things remain as they are. He suggested that if an Alternative I situation seems not to be viable to property owners they should consider Belmont Shore, a similar area that is doing quite well even with difficult parking problems. Jennie Pyle, 215 5th Street: Ms. Pyle cautioned against letting nostalgia for the old downtown prevent change. She stated that the old rundown structures will prevent anyone from erecting good new buildings, and that in her opinion the City has a choice of either permitting the area to continue going downhill or considering high- rise. Mr. Pyle also discussed possible benefits which might be derived from highrise, such as providing more people with ocean views than is presently possible. Peter von Elten, 808 Adams Avenue: Mr. von Elten stated that he feels any plan should provide more flexibility for developers, a considera- tion which is presently of more importance than the height limitation. He urged that a concrete plan be adopted under which property can be developed, but objected to the designation of a square block of property which his firm owns as "visitor -serving," a use which he said might not be economically viable for the site. Herbert Sanke, 21006 Ocean Avenue: Mr. Sanke spoke against allowing highrise without considering the amount of traffic and parking which would result. He also asked that consideration be given to the existing mobilehome parks farther to the east of the downtown. Dr. Stephen Goldberger, 20291 Harpoon Circle: Mr. Goldberger dis- cussed the development philosophy of intensive development versus the retention of the existing lifestyle, opting for an area of single-family homes with low density, low smog, and low crime. -4- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 5 There being no other persons to speak in regard to the three alternatives, the public hearing was closed. June Catalano outlined the remaining hearings, which will con- sist of another public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 28, 1980, with possible continuation of a decision to November 4 or November 18. The City Council will then hold public hearings and, after approval by the City, the plan will be heard by both the Regional and State Coastal Commissions before it is finalized. The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. LAND USE ELEMENT 80-2/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/EIR 80-3 Requests for changes in the land use designations as shown in the General Plan for the following areas of concern: Area of Concern 2.1 - 46.64 acres located south of Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street, from Estate Residential to High Density Residential. Area of Concern 2.2 - 59.55 acres located south of Adams Avenue east of Beach Boulevard, from Resource Production, Commercial, and Low Density Residential to Commercial, Medium and High Density Residential Area of Concern 2.3 - 10.18 acres south of Warner Avenue west of Beach Boulevard, from Commercial to Commercial with Multi -Story Suffix. Area of Concern 2.4 - 10.13 acres located north of Warner Ave- nue west of Magnolia Street, from Low Denisty Residential to Commercial. Area of Concern 2.5 - 10 acres located north of Ellis Avenue west of Gothard Street, from Industrial to Open Space. Area of Concern 2.1 The Commission determined to take testimony and make a determina- tion on each area of concern separately. Chuck Clark explained the alternatives available; i.e., retention of the existing designation , designation of the entire area as industrial, or a combination of medium and high density resi- dential designations. He outlined the reasons for the staff's recommendation for retention of estate designation and the exten- sion of that designation easterly to provide a logical boundary at the Gothard/Crystal realignment. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission to urge redesignation of the area to medium or high density residential, saying that the -5- 10-21-80 - P..C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 6 development of estate -sized lots would be unsuitable for the site and incompatible with the existing industrial and oil -related uses in the area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher discussed the compatibility of estate devel- opment with existing uses, saying that she believed there would be a market for such a use. Ms. Schumacher also said that existing traffic and circulation patterns in the city would not support high density development in the area. A motion was made by Commissioner Bannister to change the current estate designation within the area of concern to high density resi- dential. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RETAIN THE EXISTING ESTATE DESIGNATION IN AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 AND EXTEND THAT DESIGNATION TO THE PROPOSED PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF GOTHARD STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.2 Chuck Clark described the alternatives the staff had considered for this area and outlined the recommendation arrived at: To change the 6 acres at the intersection of Adams and Beach from resource pro- duction to commercial; to establish a high density residential on the remainder of the area west of the flood control channel; and to es- tablish medium density residential on the area east of the channel except for the southerly 14 acres, which would be designated as low density residential to permit completion of the street pattern in the existing development to the south. At the request of the Commission Savoy Bellavia reviewed the unit count per acre allowed by each of the density designations and June Catalano explained the State legis- lation in regard to provision of affordable housing through developer agreements. The Commission discussed the goals contained in the Housing Element for the provision of affordable housing and"the application of the recently enacted State provisions to a development. Legal counsel Jim Georges stated that the provision of the Government Code providing for a density bonus if at least 25 percent of a development is affordable housing is mandatory and not permissive - a municipality must grant such a bonus if a developer is willing to enter into an agreement for affordable housing. This bonus, it was explained by staff, is applicable at the time a project is brought in for entitle- ment and not at the time the zoning is granted. Commissioner Winchell expressed the concern that granting the high density designation at this time with a density bonus later would constitute granting a much higher density bonus than originally intended. i] LJ -6- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 7 The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.2 was opened. John Goodell presented a petition into the record in opposition to the requested redesignation of the area of concern. He said it had been signed by 487 taxpayers objecting to the intro- duction of either moderate or high density development into the vicinity or the provision of low and moderate income housing. Frank Mola, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of his request. He said that the existing high traffic patterns and the topographical problems on the portion of the property west of the flood control channel make it unsuitable for single- family development and that in his opinion medium density on the easterly portion of the site would provide a quality develop- ment that would be compatible with surrounding uses. He emphazized that it was not his intention to put "low cost" housing into the area. Dr. Alfred Klineman addressed the Commission to describe research literature linking increased density in housing with various types of mental illnesses and disruption of family life and to urge that the quality of life be maintained in Huntington Beach. John Guerno spoke in opposition to changing the designation, citing the existence of fault lines through the property. He also questioned the procedure used for notifying the public of this hearing. Peter von Elten, legal counsel for the applicant, spoke in support of the request, noting that the construction of single- family homes on individual lots is no longer an economically viable approach because of the rapidly increasing land and con- struction costs. Gene Fallon, 8231 Munster, Huntington Beach, addressed the Com- mission in favor of retaining the low density designation on the site. He said that he had bought his house with that under- standing and did not like to see the zoning changed; he also asked if there could be a feasibility study conducted as to the cost to taxpayers in City services for the additional density on the property. Mr. Fallon also noted that there are birds and animals on the site which should be considered. Michael McDonald, 20072 Cape Cottage Drive, also opposed the redesignation of the property, saying that he too had bought his home with the understanding that the zoning next to him was R1. Harold Ewing, 20242 Lighthouse Circle, discussed earthquake safety on the property and the possibility that future inhabi- tants would have to be evacuated and housed elsewhere in the event of a seismic occurrence. Mike Molke addressed thr crime potential high density might involve, and spoke in favor of single-family development. -7- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October. -21, 1980 Page 8 Ed Kuhlmann, 8232 Munster Drive, spoke in favor of low density discussing traffic concerns, which streets would be going through from the tract to the south, and the quality of the ensuing pro- ject if it should be redesignated. He asked that the people in the area be involved with any future rezoning or development pro- ject. Jule D'Angelo, 20202 Cape Cottage Drive, also favored the low den- sity designation, saying that more intensive development would lead to traffic and crime problems. Larry Keaton spoke in regard to the animals and birds using the site as a habitat and requested that a wildlife survey be done prior to redesignation of the area. Richard Smith, 20161 South New Britain Lane, addressed the loss of light and privacy which might result because of the more intensive development of the site. Regina Goss, a 15-year resident on Munster Drive, suggested that if no one wishes any development to take place the City should buy back the land and leave it in agriculture. Carol Gora, 8252 Munster Drive, cited traffic and school problems as a basis for opposing any higher density designation on the site. Gene Shaffer asked for reinforced environmental information because of the following: 1) 57 vario-ties of birds inhabit the site, in- cluding the endangered osprey; 2) fish inhabit the pond; 3) the pond is probably fed by natural springs; 4) the ground is weakened by oil production and the site is in an area where seismic activity can be expected; and 5) any development on the site will result in an adverse effect on the overall air quality of the community. Mary Lent, nearby resident, also opposed the redesignation of the site because people had bought their homes under the impression that the area would remain low density residential. Hal Coffey said that Huntington Beach probably has more reasonably priced housing than any other beach community, that there is plenty of high density housing north of Adams Avenue, and that if the owner has the option of proposing high density the residents should also have the option of proposing that the area be designated as open space. George Johnson, 20221 South New Britain Lane, said he is in favor of retaining the low density designation for the property. Pat Guzman, 20021 North New Britain Lane, also favored low density. Colin Guiver, Pacific Sands resident, objected to not having been informed by the City of this proposal. Secretary Palin reported to the Commission and the public on the legal requirements for notifi- cation and the method which the City had followed in this matter. -8- 1-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 9 The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.2 was closed. The Commission discussed briefly the acceptability of some increased density along the Beach Boulevard portion of the property, and the procedural steps involved in a partial approval, a denial, or a deletion of the request. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO DELETE AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND14ENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 10:30 and reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Area of Concern 2.3 The public hearing was opened. There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Chuck Clark explained that it had been the staff's recommenda- tion to expand the multi -story designation from that origin- ally requested by the applicant. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION APPROVED AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.4 Chuck Clark discussed the alternatives analyzed by staff and reported that the recommendation was for a commercial desig- nation. In response to questioning from Commissioner Bannister, City staff informed the Commission that negotiations are still in progress between the City, the developer, and the Orange County Flood Control District in regard to the location of a water well and the covering of the flood control channel for access to the site and it is hoped to have both these problems resolved soon. -9- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 10 The public hearing was opened. Ed Blain, 16901 Roque Lane, addressed the Commission to discuss the possible traffic impacts which high density commercial at the proposed location might have on the adjacent residential tract. He asked that in the event the redesignation is allowed Conners Lane remain closed to keep commercial traffic out of the housing tract. Mr. Huish, operater of a recreation center across the street from the subject property, also discussed how access would be taken and how the commercial use of the property would affect traffic turning movements into the already developed parcels. David Dahl, 1720 Pacific Coast Highway, the applicant for the amend- ment, spoke to the Commission to describe his plans in general and explain that it is their intention to meet with the neighbors in the area and discuss with them what is proposed concerning access and other problems. He asked approval of the commercial designation with the understanding that setbacks, access, etc. would be worked out through a specific plan for development. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bannister expressed continuing reservations about approving the commercial designation prior to a resolution of the negotiations with the Flood Control District. Mr. Dahl said that his understanding of those negotiations is that they have proceeded far enough that finalization is almost a formality; he also cited precedents for the covering of the channels and said that the County has no history of denial of a request of that nature. Further discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION APPROVED AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 TO REDESIGNATE THE REQUESTED AREA TO COMMER- CIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.5 Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer Greer Staff had no additional information to submit. The public hearing was opened. Joe Whaling, 6732 Calpe, spoke in opposition to the redesignation of this parcel at Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street, saying that there is at present no reason to add park area when existing parks are going undeveloped for lack of funds. 1 -10- 10-21-80 P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 11 Robert Monroe, representing Sully -Miller (owner of part of the subject property) also spoke in favor of retaining the existing indus- trial designation on this 10-acre parcel, citing the intrusion into an existing industrial area which would be created, the taking of the property off the tax rolls and adding a potential financial bur- den to the public, and the appearance of "spot zoning" which it appears would result from the redesignation. Ed Zschoche also spoke in opposition to the redesignation and in addition objected to the commercialization of Central Park by the installation of a recreational vehicle park area. A. C. Marion requested clarification of the area which would be covered by this portion of the amendment. There being no other persons to address the matter, the public hearing on Area of Concern 2.5 was closed. The Commission reviewed the proposal and the public comments. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.5 WAS DELETED FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 80-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Amendment to Standards and Criteria of the Land Use Element: June Catalano outlined the provisions for a density bonus for the construction of affordable housing within a development as suggested by staff in this section of the amendment. She pointed out that there is presently no language in the General Plan to comply with the State -mandated density bonus, which requires that a bonus be granted or other concessions made to any developer who proposes to include at least 25 percent affordable housing in a project. The proposals submitted by staff would establish standard findings with which any proposed project would have to comply in order to be granted this bonus, and would serve to give the City a measure of control over the means it would apply to conform to the new State legislation. In the discussion which followed, the Commissioners made the following comments: Commissioner Bannister expressed the need for a definitive de- cision from the City Council in regard to low-cost housing before any decision is made on this matter. Commissioner Bauer said he felt the City would have greater flexibility in approving developments if these findings are not adopted, but if each development is addressed on its own merits -11- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 12 when it is filed. It was his feeling that a decision on this matter will be of tremendous importance and alternatives need to be examined which will preclude automatic approval of what may be a violation of the intent of elected and/or appointed City officials and which may lead to building ghettos in the community. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the method by which people will qualify for purchase of the affordable housing and how it could be guaranteed to remain affordable after it is constructed. Legal counsel Jim Georges confirmed the mandatory nature of the applicable section of the Government Code (S. 65915) and staff mem- ber Bill Holman pointed out that failure to grant the density bonus might force the City into granting other alternatives that bould be considerably more expensive for the City in the long run in terms of infrastructure costs involved. The public hearing on the amendment to the standards and criteria was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission in support of adoption of the proposed regtired findings. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion followed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION DELETED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 80-3 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION APPROVED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-2 THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1268, FOR RECOMMENDA- TION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister 1 -12- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Conunission October 21, 1980 Page 13 Commissioner Porter left the meeting at 11:45 p.m. after turn- ing the chair over to Vice Chairman Winchell. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT NO. 80-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 80-4 Amendment to permit expansion of Huntington Central Park by approximately 75 acres and various amendments to neighborhood park system, consisting of the following: A. 40 acres -located north of Ellis Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. B. 25.3 acres located north of'Ellis Avenue and east of Golden - west Street. C. 10 acres located north of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street. Add designations for: Conrad, Trinidad Beach, French, Prince, Gibbs, and Carr Parks. Relocation designa- tions for: McCallen, Manning, and Edison Right--of- way, east of Brookhurst Street, park sites. Delete designations for: Westmont, Old Civic Center, Peterson, and Goldenwest/Palm Avenue park sites. Planner Bill Holman made a presentation of the areas and issues contained in the draft amendment. Commissioner Bannister questioned the effect this redesignation might have on property values in the area and how property owners could be recompensed. Legal counsel Jim Georges informed the Commission that amending the General Plan does not give rise to a cause of action for in- verse condemnation. In response to Mr. Bannister's inquiry as to whether or not the redesignation would make it more difficult for a property owner to develop his land, Mr. Georges noted that an owner could file a request under existing zoning; however, it would in all likelihood be denied for lack of conformance with the amended General Plan. The public hearing was opened. An unidentified man addressed the Commission to request that this amendment not be approved until a specific plan has been adopted for the area and property owners have been negotiated with. J.T. Hudson, 818 14th Street also opposed the amendment, stat- ing that the City has too much parkland already. -13- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 14 A.C. Marion, owner of some of the property in question, cited what he called a long history of inaction by the City and urged that some decision be arrived at. David Dahl, representing Pacific American Oil Company, asked that the City not take this kind of action unless and until it is ready to pay for the additional park acquisition. Gary Turman also spoke against the redesignation. Avery Eaton, 17524 Santa Paula Circle, Fountain Valley, said that he owns eight lots in the area and is not against the expansion of the park if the City is willing to pay a fair market ---- value for the properties. Mr. Eaton added that it would be his intent to file a court action in the event that this land is bought for a park and later on developed as something else, however. Ray Hendron, 8859 Rhine River, Fountain Valley, spoke against the addition to the park, but if the redesignation is approved the City should be prepared to pay full market price for it at its present value. Peter Laimbeer, 3704 West Camille, Santa Ana, noted that there is a great discrepancy in the prices being obtained for property directly across the street from some of the affected properties. He also questioned the addition to Central Park when the City is eliminating small parks from its plans for lack of funds. Richard Meyer, 13191 Newland, Garden Grove, opposed the addition to the park. Virginia Gross asked for a fair return on her investment in the area. Two other unidentified persons also spoke to object to the taking of their properties for the park, questioning the added maintenance costs to the City which would result and the fairness of delayed compensation. There were no other persons to address the Commission, and the public hearing was closed. In the discussion among staff and the Commission which followed, Secretary Palin explained the requirement that any land which is to be acquired by the expenditure of recreation and parks funds must first be designated as a park site, and Commissioner Winchell pointed out that the reason this amendment is before the Commission is that the City Council directed that the redesignation be done. The desirability of adding to the park was discussed, and the general consensus of the Commission was that land should only be acquired if there were a real need for additional park acreage, not just a "want" on someone's part, and that "need" has not been demonstrated. The Commission also discussed the suggested additions, relocations, and deletions suggested by staff for certain neighborhood parks in the City, and staff explained the proposed action in each case. -14- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 15 Staff asked that Conrad Park be taken off the list of parks to be added, as it is maintained by a private homeonwers' associa- tion. The Commission asked that the designation for the quarter section southeast of Brookhurst and Garfield remain flexible so that either the Edison right-of-way or Lamb School could be con- sidered as a neighborhood park site. Commissioner Schumacher asked that the proposed deletion of the park sites at Goldenwest and Palm Avenue not be included in Amendment 80-1. Richard Harlow, representing the Huntington Beach Company, addressed the Commission to urge that both these sites be deleted from the General Plan, saying that the City has no interest in pursuing either of the sites. Commissioner Schumacher, however, suggested that these parcels might possibly be useful in the future as a basis for a trade-off for another location; the Commission con- curred with this approach. Commissioner Bauer expressed the hope that any transmittal to the City Council would include the rationale of the Commission in its action on the amendment; i.e., the feeling that the land can be acquired if the City is willing and able to buy it now, the question of whether or not the City should be entering into the type of private enterprise proposed for the park, and is there a real need for more area in Central Park, or just a desire on someone's part to increase the size of the park. The Commission determined to make no changes to the areas out- lined in the draft resolution (the 40 acre area north of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street and the 25.3 acre area located north of Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street).Specific note was made that the 10 acre site at north of Ellis Avenue west of Gothard Street was not to be redesig- nated to open space; this was done even though that particular area had not been included in the draft resolution prepared -for this amendment. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL EIR 80-4 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION AS BEING COMPLETE AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH CEQA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER OPEN SPACE AND CON- SERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1269 AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter, Greer ABSTAIN: None -15- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 16 DISCUSSION ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-20 Request for Extension of Time Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has requested a continu- ance of this item to the meeting of November 4, 1980. The Commission concurred with the request for continuance. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-9 Request for Revision to Conditions of Approval ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THIS REQUEST WAS CONTIN- UED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter, Greer ABSTAIN: None SERVICE STATION CONVERSIONS ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THIS ITEM WAS CONTIN- UED FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter, Greer ABSTAIN: None CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Secretary Palin reviewed the City Council actions taken at the October 20, 1980 meeting for the information of the Commission. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: June Catalano informed the Commission of City Council review of the fiscal impact model on October 27, 1980. The Planning Commission is invited to attend this meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Bannister asked that a'request be sent to the City Council for guidance and direction in regard to inclusionary zon- ing, density bonuses, and low- and moderate -income provisions. -16- 10-21-80 - P.C.