11-06-1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mission recommends denial of the Amendment Application because the proposed C5 zoning would not be in the best interests of the neighborhood, would be poor land use, and would be in conflict with the General Plan. Owen M. Powell, Diversified Properties, Inc., 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, stated that he had sought the advice of the Planning Department Staff as to a reasonable use for the property; that Staff had expressed the opinion that the best use would be a neighborhood convenience commercial center; that he asked the procedure for implementation of this sugges- tion and was told to seek a zone change to C5; that he applied for the zone change, and was unaware of any potential opposi- tion; that he subsequently became aware of objections of the Church and condominium residents at the Planning Commission meeting; that when Father Bowers expressed concern about the sale of liquor, porno magazines, and adult activities, he (Mr. Powell) had discussed with Deputy City Attorney Richard Lay a declaration that would specifically prohibit these activities, and was told by Mr. Lay that there was no legal precedent nor any legal impediment for such a declaration; that a draft was drawn up which he would be willing to accept as a condition of use and record; that in his opinion the properties at the intersection are not suitable for single family development; that Staff has asserted that the proposed zoning is compatible with good land use principles; that the closed service station detracts from the neighborhood; that a commercial development would serve the residents and remove an eyesore. Opponent speakers were Terry Oxenham, 615 South Euclid, Presi- dent of the Homeowners Association for the condominium at the northeast corner of Euclid and McFadden; Jack McGervey, 615 South Euclid, presented a petition which he stated contained 138 signatures of neighbors in the immediate area requesting denial of the proposed zone change; and Molly Walsh, 615 South Euclid, The opponents stated that the proposed zoning would be "spot zoning" and detrimental to the neighborhood; that Mr. Powell was unable to assure residents of the type of tenants that would be in the building; that C5 zoning includes a multitude of permitted uses; that five new homes are being built and that there is a need for more; that the traffic is already heavy and dangerous for pedestrians; and that no more business is needed in this location. In rebuttal, Mr. Powell stated that he could cite examples of these two land uses existing in harmony together; that he is proposing a 5,000 square foot building which would be a mini shopping center; that although he could not specifically know in advance the nature of each business, desirable tenants would be sought and conditions imposed. The acting Clerk of the written communications; Hearing. Council reported there were no new and the Vice Mayor closed the Public On the motion of Councilman Yamamoto, seconded by Councilman Bricken, carried 5:2, with Councilmen Brandt and Ortiz dissent- ing, Council approved and filed the Negative Declaration and directed the city Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Appeal No. 396, denying Amendment Application No. 804, and affirming the action of the Planning Commission. CA 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 459 NOVEMBER 6, 1978