Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-13MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, November 13, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRdAHANGIR THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 9-18-84 WERE APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Porter ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11603 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATION AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Deputy Godfrey stated that staff had no additional information to report on the Old World Oktoberfest. Chairman Porter stated that the Talbert Gap Redevelopment Project was back before the Planning Commission as a "D" item. He went on to say that he had many requests for public testimony and asked the Commission if they would like to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Livengood indicated that the testimony should be heard; however, testimony should be limited to three minutes per person and should be directed to new information. Commissioner Erskine questioned why this was being brought back to the Planning Commission. Secretary Palin indicated that a -revised Talbert Gap Redevelopment Plan was before the Planning Commission for a possible reconsideration which has been revised in an attempt to address both the public as well as commissioners comments at their prior meeting. He also stated Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 that he felt there were some misunderstandings at that Planning Commission meeting. He went on to state that Mr. Labelle, Mr. Franz and other staff members were available to respond to questions from the commission'to resolve some of the issues and possibly the commission may act favorable in its recommendation to the City Council on the revised plan. Commissioner Higgins stated he would be in favor of reconsidering the Plan. Commissioner Livengood said he would be in favor of reconsideration based on the previous finding number 2 that the plan had inconsistencies due to the structure and organization. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO RECONSIDER THE TALBERT GAP REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Commissioner Erskine requested that the Planning Commission hear new information from staff before reconsideration. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated agreement with Commissioner Erskine. Motion was withdrawn. There was discussion regarding the requirement for 20% low and moderate income housing and the alternatives available to the City fo reducing that amount. Commissioner Erskine asked Secretary Palin whether the County was behind the proposal as this was one of his objections to the plan. Secretary Palin responded that the County was 100% behind the plan and that the City had a very good relationship with the County. Commissioner Livengood questioned what other funding source is available for flood control improvements. Bob Franz, Chief of Administrative Services, responded that there is no single source of funds for unfunded flood control projects as shown as such in C.I.P.. Florence Webb responded to the commissioners concerns as outlined in the findings of Resolution No. 1334. 1. The use of Redevelopment may adversely effect participation of other agencies in future flood control projects by creating a strain in the relationship between the City and other governmental agencies. She stated that the staff has contacted all taxing agencies in the Talbert Gap Area and most comments are in support Staff has responded and answered those with concerns. (1626d) Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 2. There are inconsistencies in the Plan due to the structure and organization of the Plan. She stated that staff has worked with Legal Council to omit all inappropriate language. Staff believes the revised plan is consistent in organization and structure and that the revisions have been made to demonstrate a good faith attempt to address all verbal and written concerns. 3. Redevelopment should be used to facilitate developments or redevelopment that of themselves enhance values in the community and should not be used to fund a single public works project no matter how desirable it might be. She stated that the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project that was approved on October 16, 1984 by the Planning Commission was primarily a public works project which included proposed traffic circulation improvements. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project would be of value to the entire community and these improvements could increase the value of property in the project area. 4. Project tax increment is inefficient method for funding public works improvements. She stated that the City Council will decide the amount of the City contribution. 5. The Plan does not address the overall City wide flooding problem as the proposed Redevelopment Area is not the only area in dire need of flood improvement construction. She stated that this is the area that has experienced the worst flooding and is susceptible to flooding in the future. 6. This project could effect the General Fund in the amount of fourteen million dollars, thus, take away monies for other potential flood control projects in the city. The fourteen million dollars is a an estimate that is proposed and not the actual dollar amount. The City Council will decide whether that amount of money will be the City contribution. She went on to say this it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission incorporate their concerns in the recommendation for approval to the City Council. She concluded by reaffirming to the commission that the primary objective of the Redevelopment Plan is to provide flood control improvements in order to reduce the risk of flooding like the 1983 flood. (1626d) Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 Commissioner Livengood asked what percentage did the county agree as their contribution to the proposal. Secretary Palin stated that there is 20% for low and moderate income housing, 30% for city projects, 5% for administration costs, and 45% of the tax increment for county channel. Commissioner Livengood respond that it appears that the county is not coming close to matching funds. Commissioner Livengood stated that the total estimated cost is $19,768,000, but if we are going to add 20% to the County we would have to cut back on some of the project. Secretary Palin responded that the plan has projected $25,200,000; however, the 20% for low and moderate income housing can possibly be reduced if the City can demonstrate good faith effort at other locations in the City. Commissioner Erskine stated that the intent of the plan is to protect the citizens;however, the problem with the plan is in the arithmetic. Florence Webb indicated that the plan was prepared a week ago; however, the negotiations with the County were completed today. She stated that the plan document can be modified to have a higher dollar amount. She went on to say that the city's financial consultant states that we will have more than $63,000,000 in tax increment duri the next 20 years to fund the project. Robert Franz stated that the agreement with the County is for 45% of the total tax increment. Commissioner Higgins requested that on Exhibit A an indication that every effort will be made to minimize the amount of funds for low and moderate income housing. Commissioner Mirjahangir questioned if eminent domain will be used to widen the rights -of -way. Florence Webb respond that the City will widen inside the channel and that the rights -of -way will remain the same as it is today. Chairman Porter opened the meeting to receive public comments. Sherry Passmore from the State Committee on Property Rights spoke in opposition to the Plan. Her main concern was that this project is like other Redevelopment Projects that are causing problems all over the State and that some properties in danger of flooding were included in the Plan and others were not. Jerry Martin spoke in opposition to the Plan. His main concerns were contradictions between the Plan and the EIR, the use of the word "Blight" to describe the area. Chauncey Alexander of the Flood Prevention Group spoke in opposition to the Plan. He said that the new plan still has some significant Problems. His main concerns were placing properties under the control (1626d) Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 of an agency that has not demonstrated an openness to dealing with the citizens and that there was no specific language in the plan that states when, where, or how much the project will cost. Dorothy Shryock spoke in opposition to the plan. Her main concerns were regarding the mobile home parks and the fact that no improvements would be made during the first year. She stated that the concerns that were taken out of the plan could be put in at a later date. Henry Bohrman spoke in opposition to the plan. He stated that the plan does not address the entire Huntington Beach flood control area. He stated that Huntington Beach should take care of the drains and pumps and the County take care of the channels. He went on to say that the improvements will not bring capacity up to the 100 year level. Sally Alexander spoke in opposition to the plan. Her main concern was the use of Redevelopment as a tool to finance the flood control improvements. Chairman Porter thanked the speakers for their comments and the public testimony was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD RECONSIDERATION OF THE TALBERT GAP REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. MOTION FAILED BH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Secretary Palin indicated that the law requires that the Planning Commission reconsider the new Plan in order to present it to City Council. He said they could vote to not approve the Plan if they feel the new information did not change their minds. Chairman Porter stated that if the Planning Commission does not recommend that the City Council not approve the new Plan, the Council would not be required to approve by a 2/3 vote. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS TO RECONSIDER THE TALBERT GAP REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD RESOLUTION NO 1337 WAS APPROVED CHANGING THE WORDING TO NOT APPROVE THE PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (1626d) Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 The commission discussed the findings that were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 1984. and amended same by deleting, rewording and adding to said findings as follows: 1. Redevelopment should be used to facilitate developments or redevelopment that of themselves enhance value in the community and should not be used to fund a single public works project no matter how desirable it might be. 2. Project tax increment is inefficient method for funding public works improvements due to the high interest rate and the loss of 20% of tax increment to affordable housing. 3. The Plan does not address the overall City-wide flooding problem as the proposed Redevelopment Area is not the only area in dire need of flood improvement construction. 4. This project could effect the General Fund in the amount of fourteen million dollars, thus, take away monies from other public services in the City. 5. The City is assuming a disproportionate amount of the flood control improvement costs for the County channels. The projection is 45% of the City's•maximum increment. AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None RECONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 84-37: 1 Mike Adams stated that at the October 16, 1984 Planning Commission meeting, motion to approve the above was made and seconded; the vote was three ayes and four noes. Subsequently, staff reviewed the Planning Commissioner's By -Laws and determined that no application shall be deemed denied without an affirmative action by a vote of four or more Commissioners. He said that the applicant has submitted a revised elevation on the conceptual plan showing added roofline variation and landscaping. Commissioner Higgins stated that he originally voted against the Zone Change because surrounding properties were zoned R-1 and R-2. He stated he would be in favor of putting a "Q" on a R-2 zone which woul� be more compatible with the surrounding residential. The public hearing was opened. (1626d) Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 Bob Michalson, representing the developer addressed the Commission. He stated that the request is to change the zone from R-5 to R-3. Under the current zoning, the site could be developed with a multy story office building: The occupancy with the proposed development would be considerable less as residential. He said the peak hour traffic would be about one=third less with residential and the setbacks would be lawns and trees, whereas if developed into office building, the setbacks would be parking lots. He went on to say that the project would provide high quality, large units. He stated that they were not asking for approval of the plan but approval of the Zone Change. They would come back for approval of the Conditional Use Permit and work out details of the plan with the staff. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-17 AND REVISE CONDITION 2 TO STATE THAT THE FINAL DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting against the motion because the applicant is attempting to develop too much on a small lot. Mike Adams stated that adding the sentence on Condition 2 is not necessary because it is covered in condition 8 which states that a use permit application along with the Design Review Board's action shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire project prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Higgins stated that he would be voting against the motion because he did not agree with the R3 zoning. AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Motion failed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-17 AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPERTY BE ZONED R2 "Q" WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS: Conditions of Approval of the "Q" 1. The proposed development shall be architectural compatible with residential developments adjacent and easterly of this development in terms of building offsets, roof and wall materials and colors , window insets, and other similar features. (1626d) Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes November l;, 1984 2. Variations in building setbacks and building height are required to enhance the development. �. A mix of one two and three bedroom units is recommended within the development. 4. Balconies shall be reduced in size and/or recessed to compliment the varied building setbacks and produce a greater variety of building elevations. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating the three existing lots. Said map shall be recorded prior to final building. inspection. 6. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in the setback areas to create a parklike atmosphere compatible with surrounding uses. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works. 7. Any proposed development shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. 8. A use permit application along with the Design Review Board's action shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire project prior to the issuance of building permits. Findings for Approval: 1. The zone change is consistent with the General Plan. 2. A change of zone on the subject property from R5, Office Professional, to R5, Medium=High Density Residential is compatible with surrounding zoning designations. 3. The "Q" designation will assure that future development will be more compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. 4. The subject property is of adequate size and shape for multiple family residential development. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None (1626d) Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 RECONSIDERATION OF,USE"PERMIT N0:,84=68 (APPEAL): Applicant: Robert Koury Use Permit 84-68 is a request to permit a convenience market in a vacant building: The Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Use Permit No. 84-68 on September 12, 1984. On October 16, 1984, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Use Permit No. 84-68 (an appeal to the BZA's recommendation for denial). Mike Adams stated that since that date, staff became aware of the fact that public notices were not mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Therefore, a new hearing is necessary. Commissioner Livengood questioned legal council if Conditions No. is required under State Building Code or City Ordinances. Robert Sangster, Legal council, responded that there is a great deal of ambiguity for this requirement; however, it is discretionary with the Commission. Commissioner Higgins questioned legal council as to whether this is a consolidation of a number of parcels. Bob Sangster responded that it is an existing building that was legal when it was built, that is built across a number of lot lines. Commissioner Higgins went on to question Mr. Sangster regarding creating a one lot subdivision by lot line adjustment. Mr. Sangster responded that the L.L.A. procedure in the zoning code provides a mechanism whereby you can adjust lot lines if there are 2 or more lots in such a way to reduce the number of lots. He went on to say that the significant problem is that the parcels could be sold separately. These lots need to be tied together. Glen Godfrey stated that staffs position is that staff's position is that when the building was constructed there was a provision to merge these parcels automatically. Subsequently, the state law changed and staff has determined that a parcel map would be the best approach. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Lame, representing the applicant who is the owner of the property, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the building is three years old; however, it was never used, He said that in the Downtown Specific Plan for District 6, the use is such that this use is an appropriate use. He said that the applicant agrees with the conditions, however feels that a parcel map is unreasonable. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. (1626d) Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 13; 1984 The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS USE PERMIT NO. 84=68 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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 the 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. 4. The proposed use will be an interim use of the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated August 9, 1984 shall be revised and resubmitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Two additional on=site parking spaces. 2. In lieu of providing additional on --site parking, the property owner shall enter into parking agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. A copy of said agreement shall be submitted to Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner of Lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 Block 504 of Huntington Beach Tract shall agree that these lots be held as one parcel until such time said ownership changes. Prior to any change in ownership a new tract map will be required. 4. Pursuant to S.4.8.08 of the Downtown Specific Plan District 6, additional right -'of -:-way dedication may be required for alley purposes. 5. At such time adjacent parcels are developed in accord with a redevelopment plan or in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan, driveway access to this site may be required to be modified so as to be compatible with such future development. An agreement to that effect shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of Building permits. 1 (1626d) Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 1;, 1984 6. rihe development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. This approval is an interim use until redevelopment of the subject site and subject to review at five years in order for the use to continue. 8. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. 9. Sale of alcoholic beverage is limited to beer and wine. A YES: I.iggins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 84=23/TENTATIVE-TRACT N0: 12242 Applicant: Iiarold bb_1—n7Bob Corona Conditional Use Permit No. 84=23 is a request to construct a 17 unit three story condominium development. - Mike Adams stated that the applicant is working on new plans and if the Commission would like to continue that staff would concur. The Commission and the applicant agreed that they would prefer to continue. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Lindsey addressed the Commission and stated that a three story building will block the view of current residents. She was also concerned about increased traffic, poor architectural design and the precedent that this type of construction will create. Mr. Williams addressed the Commission and stated that he objected to high density in this area. He said that the building should have been designed around the regulations of the Downtown Specific Plan and not have been designed with special requests. He concluded by saying that the project would block the view corridor and create more problems with visitors parking on the streets in the area. The public hearing was left open. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1984 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN AND STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO INCORPORATE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ON 12TH STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (1626d) page 12 planning Commission Minutes November 1,, 1984 AYES: Fiiggins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL -USE PERMIT NO: 84=30 Applicant: AtlaHtic RichFl=e Mirjahangir Conditional Use permit No. 84-30 is a request to permit an existing service station to convert to a convenience market. The public hearing was opened. Sam Blick, an attorney representing Atlantic Richfield, addressed the Commission. He stated that they have worked with staff and met every code requirement and exceeded every condition that was suggested. Iie said that they were concerned about the 10 foot requirement for landscaping along Beach Boulevard because that would not leave any margin for error for people entering the station. He requested that the landscape requirement along Beach Boulevard be changed to 8 feet. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed: Commissioner Livengood requested that condition 1 regarding the landscaping along Beach Boulevard be changed per the applicant's request. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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 the conditional 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. 4. The proposed access to and parking for the project will not create traffic and circulation problems. (1626d) Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1984 CONDITIONS OF -APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated 11/5/84 shall be revised to include the following: a. A minimum of 10 ft. wide landscaped planter adjacent to Garfield Avenue and a minimum of 8 ft. wide landscaped planter adjacent to Beach Blvd. b. Relocation of parking spaces 7 and 8 to provide required back-up space. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. �. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The major identification sign shall comply with S.9430.8.2 (a) or be granted a special sign permit prior to issuance of permits for the conversion. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 7. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 8. If foil' -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. (1626d) Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-09/EXTENSION OF TIME CUP 83-27 Applicant: Robert Zinngrabe Conditional Use Permit NO. 83-27 is an approved 98 unit senior citizen rental project which will expire November 15, 1984. Conditional Exception No: 84-09 is a request to permit the reduction in side yard setback; 42 efficiency units having 435 sq. ft.; a reduction in the required parking; and the inclusion of fourteen compact parking spaces. The consensus of the Commission was to continue to the next Planning Commission meeting so that staff could provide the minutes from the November 15, 1983 meeting due to the Commission's concern over the parking ratio: The public public hearing was opened. Richard Harlow Jr., representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant is in full agreement with the staff regarding parking; however, would also be in agreement for continuance if the Commission should elect to do so. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-27 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood; Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-09 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None (1626d) Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT N0.84-016 Applicant: Huntington Breakers Site Plan Amendment No. 84-016 is a request to amend the approved site plan for a 342 unit apartment complex. Chairman Porter questioned if the applicant is required to provide evidence that the units are energy efficient. Secretary Palin, responded that it has been proven that natural gas is 35% more efficient than electricity. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED WITH THE LIST OF CHANGES IN THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Chairman Porter stated that he would be voting against the motion due to the applicant's plan to restore the wetlands at Upper Newport Bay claiming it would benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. He said that the applicant should restore Huntington Beach wetlands. Conditions of Approval 1. All applicable conditions previously imposed on Use Permit No. 82-44 shall continue to apply. 2. A copy of the bond transmitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration of Upper Newport Bay wetlands shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to construction of the recreation facilities. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT'4AMENDMENT NO. 84=2-AREA'3:3'AND-ZONE CHANGE'NO:-84=9 Applicant: Ken Moody Mike Adams stated that on November 5, 1984 the City Council reviewed Land Use Element No. 84-'2. The amendment would redesignate 3.0 acres located on the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Pearce Drive from medium density residential to general commercial. The applicant indicated that he had decided that he would prefer to develop the site under the existing medium density resiential designation. Chairman Porter indicated that he had two slips from Mr. & Mrs. Oviett and asked if they would like to be heard at this time. (1626d) Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1984 Joe Oviett stated that he approved of the Pearce access and would prefer residential in the area. Virginia Oviett stated that she was in full agreement with the project. Commissioner Higgins asked what is the appropriate action to be taken by the Planning Commission. Glen Godfrey responded that the Commission should consider both matters to determine if they are in agreement with the applicant that he may withdraw and convey that to the City Council; or, if they agree with staff that should be conveyed to the Council. Commissioner Livengood stated that he would not support the applicant's request without a new public hearing. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was present at the Subdivision meeting for the shopping center and it was an excellent idea. She responded to Commission Livengood's concern that there will be a new public hearing at the City Council. Commissioner Higgins stated that he had voted against commercial previously and still feels that the property should be zoned residential. He went on to say that he felt that access should come off of Pearce. Fie said it would be poor planning to have a street such as this come off an arterial. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 WAS RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL AND MAINTAIN THE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY PROVIDED THAN ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE TAKE ACCESS OFF PEARCE STREET. AYES: Higgins, Erskine, NOES: Livengood, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Schumacher, Mirjahangir There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 12 midnight. e V:- T- 7 eg W. Palin, Secretary jr (1626d) Marcus M. Porter, irman �J 1