Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-25MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER Winn MAIN CTRRRT 1411MT1MRTnm RFAri4 rAI 19MRMIA 49AAR 6:00 P.M: - ROOM B-8 — CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER A P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood (Commissioner Ray arrived of 6:15 p.m.) AGENDA APPROVAL — APPROVED, 4-0-2 (THOMAS, RAY -ABSENT) A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.03-01 (THROUGH LOT FENCING) — Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided current information on the height and setback requirements for through lot fencing. He discussed the proposed revisions recommended by staff and the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) identified within callouts and bold text in the legislative draft dated May 25, 2004. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the block walls on Roundhill Drive were built to retaining wall standards. Staff provided information on retaining wall standards, including minimum setbacks, over the counter approvals prior to and following amendments approved in 1988, and minimum setbacks provided in Chapter 210. Commissioner Livengood asked what the process would be if the resident has a slope that encroaches into the 15-foot setback area. Staff explained that if the condition exists, a conditional use permit (CUP) must be requested and approved to allow fencing within the rear setback. Discussion ensued on the following items: • Landscaping (Chapter 210-18) • Accessory Structures (Chapter 230-3) • Exclusion of screen walls; no fencing in slopped areas (Chapter 230-36) • Retaining wall height requirements (Chapter 230-37) • Walls within the rear yard setback of a through lot abutting a local street (Chapter 230-38) • Diagram C "Exception" (Chapter 230-40) Commissioner Dingwall asked about existing properties with backfilled walls and whether or not a property owner can alter the slope. Staff responded that if a wall was backfilled without the City's permission the property owner could be cited by Code Enforcement. Staff also stated that the zoning code addresses grade differentials of 3 feet or more, and that lots of this type are specific to the Huntington Harbor area. Commissioner Dingwall expressed concerns about the approval process, and suggested (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 2 that the language be tightened up for the -preservation, of slopes, and that existing walls be inspected for safety purposes related to erosion and mudslides. Commissioner Scandura asked about prohibiting building on slopes, and to define where slopes end. Staff stated that prohibiting building on slopes is too far reaching, and that the proposed text amendment attempts to quantify setback limits. Vice Chair Ray asked about specific footage limits, setting the 15-foot standards, and - the need for a better "top of grade" identification. He also discussed the wall standards recommended by the BLT. Staff referred to the Urban Design Guidelines for fence design requirements. Discussion ensued about a Gilbert Island lot that has been compromised by erosion, and that retaining walls require an engineered design. Chair Davis asked if through lots are defined, and where the definition is located. Staff confirmed, and identified the location of the definition. Staff discussed the distinction between arterial and residential fencing. Chair Davis asked about screen wall elimination identified in Item A-1-on'Att." 230-36, and suggested a minor language modification. Staff discussed the history behind establishing a15-foot setback requirement and 2-1 slopes standards.- Staff also suggested that the Commission provide general direction related to guidelines and slope maintenance, and if necessary, draft a compromise ordinance. Chair Davis recommended that the item be continued to the next Study Session scheduled for June 8, 2004 at 5:15 p.m., Huntington Beach Civic Center. 2. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Herb Fauland Herb Fauland, Principal Planner, outlined items on the 7:00 p.m. agenda, and reported that no new information has been received on Public Hearing Item No. B-2 (Target Demolition and Rebuild). B. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Randy Fuhrman, Roundhill Drive, provided comments on Study Session Item No.-A-1 (Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 — Through Lot Fencing). He discussed the purpose of the ordinance, secondary frontage, unsuccessful compromises and planters, Gilbert Island embankments greater than 15 ft. and BLT recommendations. Carole Garrett, Roundhill Drive, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-1 (Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 — Through Lot Fencing). She discussed the number of through lots in the Huntington Harbor, lot sizes, how embankments and backyard usable space varies, and the number of homeowners who support recommendations made by the BLT. (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 3 Richard Batistelli, President, Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-1 (Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 — Through Lot Fencing). He indicated his support of recommendations made by the BLT, and requested that the Commission keep the areas aesthetic value as is. 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO ALLOW PUBLIC SPEAKING DURING NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 0-2 (PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSISPEAKER ALLOTMENT OF TIME, CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 2004), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED Chair Davis presented Planning Commission Resolution No. 1591, expressing appreciation to outgoing Planning Commissioner Jan Shomaker. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mark Hodson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, provided comments on Non -Public Hearing Item No. D-1 (Pacific City Project Follow -Up Issues/Minute Action), speaking against closing the entrance to Pacific Mobile Home Park. Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, spoke in support of Non -Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Public Hearing Process/Speaker Allotment of Time.) Julie Bixby, Hillgate Lane, spoke in support of Non -Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Public Hearing Process/Speaker Allotment of Time.) Paul Cross, Huntington Street, spoke in support of Non -Public Hearing Item No. D-1 (Pacific City Project Follow -Up Issues/Minute Action) and Non -Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Public Hearing Process/Speaker Allotment of Time.) He discussed how the 4-minute time donation would have been beneficial to speakers on the Pacific City Project. He also outlined development issues related to the Pacific City project, including number of residential units, square footage, rush hour traffic on Atlanta and Huntington, OCTA Buses, Pacific Mobile Home Park, and provided support for the draft minute actions submitted by Commissioners Thomas, Ray and Livengood, with the exception of a traffic circle. (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 4 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B.I. PUBLIC HEARING • PERMIT NO 03-01 AND VARIANCE NO. 03-01,—Continued from April 13, 2004): Applicant/Appellant: Joseph Santiago Request: To amend Conditional Use Permit No. 03-01 and Variance No. 03-01 by deleting the following conditions of approval: a) Condition No. 1-a — requiring the removal of staircase along interior side property line; b) Condition No. 4 — requiring an application for a lot line adjustment; c) Condition No. 3-a — requiring an irrevocable offer to dedicate for alley purposes; d) Condition No. 5-d-e — requiring a new water meter and box; e) Condition No. 1-d — requiring the under grounding of utility lines. Location: 403 Tenth Street (northeast comer of Tenth Street and Orange Avenue) Project Planner: Ram! Talleh STAFF RECOMMENDATION:- Motion to: "Continue Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 03-09 to a date uncertainwith re -notification of the public hearing." - A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO 03-09 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN WITH RE -NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED B-2 (TARGET DEMOLITION AND REBUILD): Appellant: Charles G. Ball A plip cant: John Warren Request: To permit the demolition of a 103,458 square foot retail building and construction of a new 123,800 square foot Target department store with an 8,100 square foot attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area with installation of new perimeter and interior landscaping, and pedestrian walkways throughout the subject site. Location: 9882 Adams Avenue (Southwest comer of Brookhurst St. and Adams Ave.) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings, and suggested conditions of approval." Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, made a PowerPoint presentation and . provided a staff report to the Commission. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Scandura spoke with staff, read project -related documentation, -and visited the site; Vice Chair Ray visited the site and adjoining sites; Commissioner Dingwall spoke with (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 5 staff, visited the site, inspected the driveways and read project -related documentation; Commissioner Livengood attended project -related meetings held before the Zoning Administrator (ZA), met with applicant, visited the site and read project -related documentation; Chair Davis visited the site and read project - related documentation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Kareen Ali, Target Corporation, spoke in support of staffs recommendation and identified a team of consultants available for questions. Ed Casey, Legal Counsel for Target Corporation, discussed mitigation of alleged traffic impacts and the lack of jurisdiction for a request to require a traffic signal at the southerly -most driveway along the Brookhurst Street frontage. He also stated that all avenues of appeal throughout the environmental process have been exhausted, and discussed mitigation measures for environmental issues. John Warren, Pacific Land Services, thanked City staff and spoke in support of staffs recommendation. Charles Ball, appellant, informed the Commission that he provided comments at the public hearing held by the ZA on March 31, 2004. He stated that the ZA failed to provide information on the 10-day appeal period. He discussed reorientation of the driveway entrance to the store on Brookhurst Street. He voiced concerns related to the traffic study, calling it inadequate. He stated that he first received notice of the proposed Target driveway in March 2002, and spoke with adjacent property owners about the need for an additional traffic signal. James Kawamura, Traffic Engineer with KHR Associates, voiced concerns related to recommendations made within the traffic study, and some deficiencies that exist. His biggest concern dealt with a second driveway on Brookhurst Street at the southeast quadrant of the intersection at Adams Avenue and Brookhurst, and that the traffic study indicated that 4 warrants were met for signalization. Robert Kahn, RK Engineering Group, retained by Target to perform traffic study analysis on the Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street intersection, discussed traffic patterns and traffic volume produced by Stater Brothers Center patrons. He also discussed the options identified (turn restrictions) within the traffic study, and reiterated that the need for a traffic signal is generated by Stater Bros Center traffic. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the proposed traffic signal at the Adams driveway was to provide for safe left hand turns. Staff confirmed., Commissioner Dingwall questioned why the southern most driveway is less deserving. Staff explained that since Target will generate less traffic at the subject intersection than the Stater Bros Center, a signal at that particular location is not warranted. Staff also explained that a traffic signal on Adams is of priority because of number of accidents in that location. Commissioner Dingwall stated that the (04pcm0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 6 intersection is the worst in the City, and that Stater Bros has no connection with the number of accidents in that location. He also discussed the two most recent examples of design by staff without consideration, practicality or common sense, citing examples such as a backwards gas station on Warner, and the Ralph's shopping center at Garfield and Goldwenwest. He stated that traffic patterns will change in the Target region and indicated his support of the project appeal. Commissioner Scandura asked about availability of data on the number of vehicles that cross the street from Target to Stater Bros, and for the number of left turns into Target from Brookhurst. Staff confirmed, and provided am/pm peak hour traffic volumes. Vice Chair Ray stated that he patronizes businesses in that area, and identified the Brookhurst and Adams intersection as the most dangerous intersection in Orange County. He asked what legal basis is accomplished if an appeal is granted. Commission Counsel stated that the appeal is on the conditional use permit (project), and that the environmental review process is complete and provides no legal basis. Vice Chair Ray asked why the item is before the Commission. Commission Counsel replied that the appellant's right to file an appeal administratively is allowed by state law and CEQA. Vice Chair Ray asked if a traffic light could be approved at the subject location without environmental analysis. Commission Counsel answered that since the issue is not identified within the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), an appropriate nexus has not been established. Staff explained that the appellant wants Target to pay for improvements that are not identified as being generated by the Target development in the traffic study, and that the Commission may wish to consider a minute action to the Public Works Commission for improvements outside of Target's request for project approval. Vice Chair Ray asked if someone could justify traffic impacts produced by Stater Bros. Staff explained that they are not opposed to a traffic signal at that location, just Target being the responsible party to pay for it. Vice Chair Ray asked if there were any plans to realign/change medians in connection with that project? Staff explained that such a plan is not being considered because the access point is so close to the intersection that signalization would not be possible. Staff also explained that discussions have been held in the past with Mr. Ball and other property owners about traffic synchronization and additional signals in that area. Vice Chair Ray asked if the traffic analysis information provided for Stater Bros turn lanes and the- southern entrance of Target are collected during peak volume hours on.weekdays and weekends. Staff answered that the information is collected through a 24-hour circulation method. Commissioner Uvengood asked if the applicant could legally agree to pay a percentage of appellants proposed traffic improvements. Commission Counsel stated that the applicant could legally agree to share traffic improvement costs, (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 7 but that the agreement could not be made through the conditional use permit process as a condition of approval. Chair Davis discussed the appellant's rights for basis of a decision. He also discussed lack of jurisdiction and determination on the merits without legal analysis and nexus to the issue being environmental in nature. Staff followed that the request fails to provide a nexus between Target, traffic impacts identified within the traffic study, and land use law. Commission Counsel commented that CEQA law and zoning code requirements are in affect since traffic -related impacts were not appealed during the Zoning Administrator's MND review period (provided circumstances that would change the legality of appealing, including new information, change in circumstance, etc., do not exist.) Chair Davis asked about cause and effect, and evaluating impacts. Staff stated that professional judgment is used in evaluating the facts presented. Staff continued by explaining that access points controlled by traffic signals and current existing patterns (traffic counts, volume, etc.), will not change significantly enough to provide a nexus for added signalization. Chair Davis asked about the cost to install a new traffic signal, and how much the appellant was willing to contribute financially. Staff provided a cost estimate of $120,000, and stated that the appellant would share 50% of the cost. Commissioner Scandura commented that evidence has not been produced that the project will have a significant effect on traffic. He also stated that he does share concerns related to safety issues and general improvement, and would not be opposed to a minute action to City Council. He then discussed his proposed changes to the CUP, including gate closure on Attachment 1.5 and adding a condition stating gates open no earlier that 8:00 a.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. Commission Counsel explained that the zoning code allows for promotion of public safety onsite, but offsite issues require a nexus. Vice Chair Ray asked if Zoning Administrator delivered appeal rights at the March 31, 2004 hearing. Staff confirmed. Vice Chair Ray followed by asking if the notice of appeal was not given, does it change appeal rights. Commission Counsel answered no, and stated that the city met all posting and public notice requirements. Staff explained the appeal process, and that the entire project, irrespective of reasons for appeal, is now reviewed and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Ray asked about the stores hours of operation and delivery, and how recommended signage differs from what is indicated in the staff report. Staff identified the correct hours recommended by staff. Staff also discussed vendor trucks (25' flatbeds) entering the site between 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Chair Davis noted that the applicant provided vendor truck information, and Vice Chair Ray requested consistency. Staff discussed traffic study warrants, including volumes, accidents and scenarios, explaining that 4 of 11 warrants were satisfied. (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-35 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INCLUDING DELIVERY TRUCK HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M., GATE OPEN AND CLOSURE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M., PUBLIC ART ELEMENT APPROVAL BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WITH FINAL REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The applicant voiced concerns with store and delivery truck hours being too restrictive. Commissioner Livengood amended his motion to delete truck hours and clarify gate hours instead of store hours. Commissioner Scandura asked the applicant to provide a preference for hours of operation and connection to gate hours. The applicant requested 7:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m. A MOTION WAS MADE BY. LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO AMEND THE MOTION BY FINDING THAT A NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN WILL AFFECT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THAT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS REQUIRED AT THE SOUTHERLY -MOST DRIVEWAY ALONG THE BROOKHURST STREET FRONTAGE. Commission Counsel advised against the amendment and finding because a nexus had not been established_ Commission Counsel also reminded the Commission that a minute action to the City Council would be more appropriate. THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. Vice Chair Ray suggested that the hours of operation be identified. The applicant requested that the hours of operation be identified as 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with increased hours of 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m..during the holiday season. -Commissioner Livengood agreed to the applicant's request. THE MOTION WAS RESTATED BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-35 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDING GATE OPEN AND CLOSURE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M., HOURS OF STORE OPERATION OF 7:00 A.M. TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT, AND TO IDENTIFY APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC ART BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBSEQUENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 9 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY RAY, TO FORWARD MINUTE ACTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO THE APPELLANTS OFFER TO SHARE 50% OF THE COSTS TO CONSTRUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE SOUTHERLY -MOST DRIVEWAY ALONG THE BROOKHURST STREET FRONTAGE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED C. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS — None. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1. PACIFIC CITY PROJECT FOLLOW-UP ISSUES / MINUTE ACTION (CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 2004) Motion to: "Approve minute actions as determined by the Planning Commission and forward to the City Council." Vice Chair Ray distributed a late communication dated May 25, 2004 to the Commission, updating his suggested minute actions dated May 11, 2004 provided in the D-1 staff report. Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about detailed information being submitted so late. He discussed his review of Vice Chair Ray's May 11 minute actions, and stated that he would not support consideration of substituting the late communication. Vice Chair Ray responded that the timing of introduction does not make an item inappropriate, suggesting that the late communication be considered and voted on. Commissioner Dingwall supported consideration of Vice Chair Ray's late communication, but requested that he consider striking the paragraph following "Either" on page 4, Item G. Atlanta Avenue Designation. Commissioner Livengood voiced concerns to the amount of detail included in Vice Chair Ray's late communication, stating that such detail would not have an impact on the City Council, who would most likely request staff review and analysis. He suggested that a cover memo highlighting the key issues be forwarded to the Council, with the backup material attached. He also suggested that the Commission take action on the D-1 report provided by staff. Discussion ensued about late communication. Vice Chair Ray stated that detail is helpful, and that the Commission should decide whether or not to consider the item at all, or vote individually or collectively on the proposed minute action items. He also provided a brief summary on his late communication. (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 10 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO ACCEPT THE LATE MINUTE ACTION SUBMITTED BY RAY WITH A CORRECTION TO PAGE 3, ITEM E. ENTRANCE TO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK BY DELETING LANGUAGE THAT STATES "RELOCATION OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO ACCESS DELAWARE STREET," AND INCLUDE LANGUAGE STATING "PROVIDES FOR A SECONDARY ENTRANCE TO ACCESS DELAWARE STREET." Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns about the proposal resulting in the loss of two mobile pads, and whether or not it was legal to direct action that results in private property loss. Chair Davis voiced opposition to the motion and reminded the Commission that all are able to contact the City Council individually, either in person, by phone, or. in writing to communicate project related concerns. Commissioner Scandura stated that he had concerns with the May 11 minute actions submitted by Vice Chair Ray, and that he would oppose the motion to accept the May 25 updated minute actions. He also drew attention to Item G. Atlanta Avenue Designation, and language that. proposes exercising eminent domain. Commissioner Livengood withdrew his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO DENY ALL MINUTE ACTIONS. . Vice Chair Ray argued that the motion was out of order, and attempted to provide an explanation of the detail included in his late submittal of proposed minute actions. LIVENGOOD MOTIONED TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION, DAVIS SECONDED. THE COMMISSION WAS ASKED TO VOTE ON ENDING THE DEBATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSTAIN: Ray ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED DAVIS MOTION TO DENY ALL MINUTE ACTIONS WAS REPEATED, AND THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall - ABSTAIN: Ray ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 11 D-2. PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS/SPEAKER ALLOTMENT OF TIME (CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 2004) Motion to: "Approve the legislative draft of the Allocation of Speakers Time for a trial period of one-year and forward to the City Council for final review and approval." Commissioner Dingwall outlined information in the legislative draft and sample public speakers sign-up sheet included in the D-2 staff report. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ACCEPT THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF THE ALLOCATION OF SPEAKERS TIME AND SCHEDULE FOR ACTION AT THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Discussion ensued about presenting the item to the City Council prior to formal action by the Planning Commission. Staff and Commission Counsel recommended forwarding to the City Council before taking action. Commissioner Dingwall agreed to amend his motion accordingly. Commissioner Scandura discussed the concerns he previously held about speakers abusing the public hearing process, but also provided support for the suitability of donating time for groups with a proposed presentation. He mentioned that the Coastal Commission and Costa Mesa City Council find this process beneficial, and asked if the request is accepted, that it be on a one-year trial basis. Commissioner Dingwall confirmed. Vice Chair Ray pointed out that the legislative draft did not indicate that donation of time applies to agendized items only, suggesting that the language be modified to include the term "only" to clarify that donation of time does not apply to comments provided during oral communications. Commissioner Dingwall accepted the modification. Chair Davis stated that individual's who provide comments during oral communications often address agendized items not listed under public hearing (minutes, non-public hearing items, etc.) Discussion ensued among staff and the Commission to clarify the motion on the floor. At the request of the Chair, Commissioner Dingwall withdrew his original motion in an effort to prepare another motion and gain understanding on what the Commission intends to approve. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO RESTRICT DONATION OF SPEAKERS TIME TO AGENDIZED, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ONLY. Commissioner Dingwall indicated that he did not accept Commissioner Livengood's amendment. Commission Counsel asked Commissioner Livengood to clarify his intent. Commissioner Livengood stated that his motion was intended for a vote. (00=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 12 COMMISSIONER SCANDURA PROVIDED A SECOND TO LIVENGOOD'S MOTION TO RESTRICT DONATION OF SPEAKERS TIME TO AGENDIZED, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ONLY. Discussion ensued over allowing donation of speakers time during oral communications. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Scandura, Livengood NOES: Ray, Davis, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None - ABSENT:. Thomas MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO ACCEPT THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF THE ALLOCATION OF SPEAKERS TIME WITH MODIFIED LANGUAGE RESTRICTING DONATION OF SPEAKERS TIME TO "ANY AGENDIZED ITEM OTHER THAN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS." After lengthy discussion without consensus, Commissioner Dingwall withdrew his motion::. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO TABLE THE ITEM WITH DINGWALL TO REVISE LANGUAGE AND BRING BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING. Commission Scandura stated that he would not be supportive of allowing donation of time during oral communications. Staff asked that the Commission clarify how the request affects the applicant. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Thomas MOTION APPROVED Vice Chair Ray discussed bringing back entire public hearing process recommendation from the Subcommittee. He also requested that staff revise the meeting agenda by correcting an E-1 title error outlined within the PC Protocol. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS — None. (04p=0525) PC Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 13 E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas — Absent. Commissioner Scandura — Expressed birthday wishes to Chair Davis. Commissioner Ray — Made a statement that he will be bringing back the Pacific City Project minute actions he submitted as an E-1 item at a future meeting. Commissioner Davis — None. Commissioner Dingwall — None. Commissioner Livengood — Suggested that a study session be conducted regarding native vegetation; he will bring it up as an E-1 item at a future meeting. He also discussed the Planning Commission's protocol, and that Commissioner's are not to indicate how they intend to vote on an item publicly before all information is presented, and inappropriately directing the public to attend a Planning Commission meeting to advocate a particular position on an agendized item. F. PLANNING ITEMS: F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING — Not discussed. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING — Not discussed. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING — Not discussed. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:30 pm. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 8, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. APP V7BY: and zelefsky, Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04p=0525)