Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-02APPROVED 6/16/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS Items D-1 through D-3 were heard under B Items. The public was allowed to voice support or opposition during hearing. See action under appropriate items. 9 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 APPEAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9: USE PERMIT NO. 87-34 APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT An appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's approval of an Administrative Review and Conditional Exception request to permit a 122,424 square foot industrial building in conjunction with a variance to permit a 10 1/2 foot front yard setback in lieu of a 14-foot front yard setback on Redondo Circle and to permit a truck well 50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width, along with a Negative Declaration. In conjunction with the appeal, Use Permit No. 87-34 is a request to permit an industrial building within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. Use Permit No. 87-34 and the appeal of Administrative Review No. 87-15, Conditional Exception No. 87-24 and Negative Declaration No. 87-9 were continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1987, at the applicant's request. The applicant required additional time to respond to environmental issues raised at the City Council meeting of May 4, 1987. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Use Permit No. 87-34 and the appeal of Administrative Review 87-15, Conditional Exception 87-24 and Negative Declaration No. 87-9 to the June 16, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, to be heard in conjunction with the amendment of the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan and Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1. This will enable the resolution of several issues associated with the appeal and will reduce the likelihood of these topics being raised as potential legal issues. The applicants are in concurrence with this recommendation as they are continuing to work with staff and the appellant to resolve the concerns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9 AND USE PERMIT NO. 87-34, TO THE JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Summerell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -2- (8334d) C-2 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-69 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-67 APPLICANT: CHARLES AND ROSEMARY CARTER An appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of a request to permit addition of two units to an existing duplex with non -conforming setbacks; along with a request to permit a 12 foot wide driveway in lieu of a 20 foot wide driveway, and to permit a balcony to serve as private open space in lieu of a patio for one unit. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 1987, in order for the applicants to work with staff to design an alternative proposal. Since that meeting, the applicants have submitted a revised site plan which addresses some of the Commission's concerns regarding driveway access and parking. The revised layout, however, will require different conditional exceptions (variances) than those proposed by the original design, and will consist of a total of three units on the site rather than four. The new project description will require re -notification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the appeal of Use Permit No. 86-69 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-67 to the meeting of June 16, 1987, to allow for proper advertising of the revised requests. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 86-69 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-67 TO THE JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TO BE RE -ADVERTISED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-94 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-1 APPLICANT: ADEL M. ZEIDAN An appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of a request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages at an existing convenience market in conjunction with a request to permit five (5) parking spaces in lieu of the required twelve (12) spaces at 301 Seventeenth Street. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -3- (8334d) This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1987, at the applicant's request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial and deny the appeal based on the analysis and findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dan Carlton, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that parking seems to be the primary concern of the residents in the neighborhood and that most business is walk-in business. He further stated that parking is available on two streets because of the stores location on a corner. His client believed that liquor sales would be allowed before he invested one-half million dollars. Natalie Kotsch, 1722 Park Street, spoke in support of the request. She stated that Mr. Zeidan is a good merchant and businessman and his store is an asset to the neighborhood. Fred A. Foreman, 301 20th. Street, spoke in support of the request. He feels that the market is an enhancement to the neighborhood. Kay Seraphine, 509 17th. Street, spoke in opposition to liquor sales at the market. She stated that at the Board of Zoning Adjustment's meeting the applicant agreed to no liquor sales at the market. Sharon Lili, 221 17th. Street, spoke in opposition to the request. She feels that there is too much traffic in the area now and that the market does not provide suffient parking. Frank Zappia, 226 27th. Street, stated that the neighborhood is now being upgraded to single family residences and that that Board of Zoning Adjustments made a good decision when they denied this request. He feels that C2 zoned property should require more parking and that the setback of this market is not in conformance with the codes. He further stated that there is already a liquor store up the street from this market and does not feel the street requires another liquor store. He requested that the Commission uphold the laws and ordinances to protect the citizens in the area. Richard Dorn, 228 17th. Street, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that it will increase traffic and loitering in the area. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -4- (8334d) 1 Kenneth J. Golden, 1717 Park, representative of the liquor store owner to the north of this market, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that the market is already encroaching on the business of his client's store and with the sale of liquor will increase. He does not feel that the request should be granted since the applicant is not even providing 50% of the required parking. Frank Mirjahangir, designer of the building, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the building, which was designed to be a grocery store, met all Q-C3 codes and has improved the corner and alley by $25,000. He said that he was in attendance at the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting because the applicant was out of the country. Liquor sales were denied because of the shortage of parking and he agreed (without the approval of the applicant) that there would be no liquor sales at the market. He feels that the store improves the neighborhood. Carol Hancock, 503 17th. Street, spoke in opposition to the request. She feels that since the store is located so close to the beach area and that there is already a liquor store in the area that another one is not needed. Paul Columbus, owner of the property next door to the market, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that liquor sales would deteriorate the neighborhood. Gene Shaw, resident in the neighborhood, stated that everyone should be governed by the same premise. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Some Commissioners felt that the store is an asset to the neighborhood and that most of the traffic is on foot, however they felt that the market should be in compliance with the codes and since there are no unique circumstances present on this site that over 50 percent variance to the parking requirement cannot be granted arbitrarily. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY USE PERMIT NO. 86-94 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-1, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Higgins, NOES: Silva, Pierce ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -5- (8334d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-1: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The lot in question is of regular size and shape, with no unusual topographic features. 2. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 87-1 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. New structures or uses are required to conform with current applicable codes. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. The appellant's existing grocery market can continue to operate, however addition of a new use (alcohol sales) requires compliance with the current codes. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO, 86-94: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use (alcohol sales) will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. Additional parking required for liquor sales will not be provided, creating a traffic hazard at the intersection of 17th and Olive, and in the adjacent alley. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood because liquor sales will generate additional commercial traffic in a predominantly residential area. 3. On -site parking and circulation are inadequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by alcohol sales and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. The appellant currently has an existing grocery market which can continue to operate with the existing parking ratio. C-4 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-2/ZONE CHANGE 87-2 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT,87-2(c) - AREA 2.1 is a private request to redesignate 65 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, south side of Heil Avenue and 600 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium, Medium High and Senior Residential. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -6- (8334d) [1 The applicant, Dick Nerio, has requested a 6 week continuance to evaluate the sewer capacity problems on the subject property with the Orange County Sanitation District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Land Use Element Amendment 87-2(c) to a special July 28, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jack Silva, 16641 Kettler Lane, stated that he feels the City should take a better look at where they are proposing development. He feels the City is being over -developed and that traffic is increasing dramatically. Dean Albright, Environmental Board, Member of the Ad Hoc Committee, stated that the committee feels that the environmental impact report is inadequate and should not be used. He feels that the sewers and septic tanks in the area should be further restudied. All other speakers present stated that they would wait until the July 28, 1987 special meeting to speak and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested by the Commission that the item be re -notified and that the notification area be expanded to 1,000 feet instead of 300 feet at the City's expense. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2(C) TO THE SPECIAL JULY 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH RE -NOTIFICATION TO 1,000 FEET AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT-87-2(a) - AREA 2.2 is a request initiated by the City of Huntington Beach to redesignate a 2.7 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Center Drive and Gothard Street from Public, Quasi -public, Institutional to Mixed Development. Zone Change No. 87-2 is to change the zone designation of the site from Community Facilities Education with a base zone of Low Density Residential (CF-E) (R-1) to Commercial with a Multi -story suffix (C4-MS) is being processed concurrently. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -7- (8334d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 and adopt Resolution No. 1378 for recommendations contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zone Change 87-2 for a change from CF-E, R1 to C4-MS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jeff Ordway, OCTD, spoke in support of staff's recommendation. He stated that with this certification and zone change that the transit needs and further developments would be met. There were no other persons present to speak for or against and the public hearing was closed. A discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the zone change. They were not opposed to a mixed use concept however were concerned with the possible magnitude of development. They suggested to staff that more research be completed in the area and that bids received from developers by OCTD be analyzed to see what development plans were being initiated. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-2 AND LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2(a)-(AREA 2.2) AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 1378 A RESOLUTIN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -8- (8334d) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1378 (Continued) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1. That Area 2.2 consisting of 2.70 acres located on the northeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be redesignated from Public, Quasi -public Institutional to Mixed Development. WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on June 2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach 'is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 2nd. day of June, 1987. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE (AREA 2.2) TO THE JULY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2b - AREA 2.1 is a request initiated by the City of Huntington Beach to redesignate a 10.1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Open Space -Recreation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 and adopt Resolution No. 1379 for approval of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b (for a change from General Commercical to Open Space Recreation). PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -9- (8334d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2b AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, RESOLUTION NO. 1379 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2b WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendment to the Land Use Element: 1. That Area 2.1 consisting of 10.1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street be redesignated from General Commercial to Open Space Recreation. WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-2b was held by the City Planning Commission on Jurie'2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -10- (8334d) 1 [1 D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING (Items D-1 and D-3 were heard under B Items - Oral Communications, with public comments) D-1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO, 1380 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH/BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution recommending adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: James A. Lane, 637 Frankfort Avenue, Chairman of the PAC, spoke in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that the committee is very concerned with the plan and wants the project denied. He addressed four of their concerns: (1) Information has been withheld from the committee. They have spent 6 months on this study and feel they have been lied to and misled. (2) The committee feels there is no plans for this 500 acres. They feel that 100 acres will be taken from private enterprise and sold to developers cheap. The committee is considering hiring an attorney for representation. (3) Out of the 21 members (cross section of people along Beach Boulevard) of the PAC, 18 of them voted against this plan. (4) The committee feels that floating bonds to capture the tax base is against the law. Douglas Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, spoke in opposition to the redevelopment plan. He feels that the taxpayers will have to pay a large bond if approved. He stated that he does not want high density areas along Beach Boulevard and feels it is against the constitution to not allow citizens to develop their own property. Doug LaBelle, Director of Redevelopment, addressed the concerns of the PAC. He explained that the Redevelopment Plan was a plan that would address problems 35 years into the future. Since the only action to be taken by the Planning Commission was to certify that the Redevelopment Plan was in conformance with the General Plan and not to make recommendations or findings it was agreed that action would be taken and a list of comments would be forwarded to the City Council. Redevelopment staff indicated to the Commission that the Preliminary Plan was adopted by the Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution No. 1365 on October 14, 1986. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -11- (8334d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, WITH REVISIONS TO RESOLUTION NO. 1380, AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH COMMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Summerell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1. The Project Area Committee recommended denial of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. There has been no formal Planning Commission public hearings on the Redevelopment Plan which is necessary for adequate public input. 3. The reports and calendars that the Planning Commission has been identified as taking an action mainly focused on the Planning Commission finding the Redevelopment Plan in conformance to the General Plan and not approval of the project area. 4. There is a lack of definition in the Redevelopment Plan. 5. There is an unrestricted use of eminant domain. 6. The Redevelopment Plan has a potential of increasing density in the area. RESOLUTION NO. 1380 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has sub- mitted to the Planning Commission a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has formulated and adopted a Preliminary Plan for the Project and finds it in conformance with the General Plan; and I PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -12- (8334d) RESOLUTION NO. 1380 (Continued) Section 33346 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq.) provides that the Planning Commission is to review the proposed Redevelopment Plan and make its report thereon to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council, including a determination that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach; and Section 65402 of the Government Code provides in part: "(a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, pur- pose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to con- formity with said adopted general plan or part thereof . . . "(c) A local agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in any county or city, if such county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposi- tion, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof . . ." and The above required reports and recommendations, including matters referred to in Section 33346 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 65402 of the Government Code, are to be made to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council for their consideration in acting on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Redevelop- ment Plan, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the General Plan of the city and other pertinent reports and documents. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -13- (8334d) RESOLUTION NO. 1380 (Continued) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, as follows: 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: (a) Pursuant to Section 33346 of the Community Rede- velopment Law, the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project (attached hereto as Attachment No. 1) conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. (b) Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, with respect to public activities which may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and that are referred to in said section, such activities and undertakings con- form to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Report. The Planning Commission hereby reports to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach the findings referred to in Section 1. In the event that prior to its adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council desires to make any further minor, technical, or clarifying changes to the Redevelopment Plan, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor, technical, or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for further report and recommendation. 3. Transmittal. The Planning Commisson's Secretary shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Huntington Beach Rede- velopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach for consideration as part of the Agency's Report to the City Council pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and this Resolution shall be deemed the report concerning the proposed Redevelopment Plan and contemplated public projects and activities thereunder, as required by applicable provisions of law. 4. The Planning Commission makes no recommendations for or against the approval of the Redevelopment Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd. day of June, 1987. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -14- (8334d) D-2 REINSTATEMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate Tentative Tract 10067 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO REINSTATE TENTATIVE TRACT 10067, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED D-3 RECONSIDERATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-15 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-23 APPLICANT: CENTER FOR SPECIAL SURGERY, INC. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Madelyn Tinkler, Center for Special Surgery, Inc., spoke in support of the reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-15 and Conditional Exception (Variance No. 87-23). She stated that the center would like approval to build the center first and the parking structure second and they are willing to work with staff and change their plans to include the required number of parking spaces. If required, they are willing to build the parking structure and center concurrently. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-15 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-23 WITH A PUBLIC HEARING BEING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -15- (8334d) F. G. H. PENDING ITEMS The following items were added to the Pending Items list: 307 17TH. STREET - is the parking lot on this property in violation of the code? CITY -OWNED LOT LOCATED AT ADAMS AVENUE AND SANTA ANA RIVER - Being used as a dump site. COLFAX AVENUE - Being used as a dump site. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Several complaints have been received regarding offensive magazines being sold at stands in front of Main Post office located on Warner Avenue. Post Office suggested that maybe the City could do something about it. Staff was requested to follow up on the complaints. The Commission requested that staff prepare analyses on projected annual traffic, resolvement of sewage problems at Slater Pump Station, and the master water plan for Meadowlark before the scheduled public hearing. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, AT 10:40 PM TO ADJOURN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION OF JUNE 16, 1987, AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: ames W. Palin, Secretary K t M. Pierce, Chairman �I PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -16- (8334d)