Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-211 APPROVED ON 7-6-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR CON- SISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 7, 1983, AND THE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-3, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -AYES: Higgins, Winchell*, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Winchell (abstained REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, on Item A-1, minutes) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-6 Applicant: W & B Builders & Seaside Village Town Home Association (Continued from 6-7-83) A request to revise a previously approved conditional use permit to allow the addition of security gates and wrought iron fencing within a planned residential development located at the southwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Livengood expressed a concern about communication with the tenants in the HUD units. Mr. Bellavia stated that the owner of the rental units was in favor of the proposed changes and that the applicant from Seaside Towne Homes Association had requested a continu- ance to the second meeting in August. Frank Thompson of W & B Builders concurred with Seaside's request for a 2 month continuance. Further discussion took place regarding legal notification responsibility as re- lated to the renters' rights. Commissioner Erskine reiterated the position taken by legal counsel at previous meetings, that the renter's had no legal standing. However, Mr. Palin stated that, if it was H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 2 the desire of the Commission, he would dispatch a letter to the renters asking for a uniform position from them and informing them of the re- quested continuance to the second meeting in August. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 83-6 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1983, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins,,Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 83-16 Applicant: Carol Van Asten A request to construct an addition to an existing private day school center located on the north side of Utica Avenue, 365 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Carol Inge gave a slide presentation on the item. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mel Borgis, a neighbor in the adjacent apartments, expressed his concerns regarding the proposed project, -however, he consented that a block wall on the north property line between the existing day school and the apartment complex would be a better buffer than what was pro- posed. The applicant, Carol Van Asten stated her desire to cooperate with her neighbors and suggested that problems of "unattended" children could be originating from other areas. She further requested that the Planning Commission approve her request for expansion with the con- ditions outlined in the staff report. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine made a motion to approve the CUP and negative declaration with the findings and conditions as outlined by staff. Since there was no second, motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-16 WAS FOUND ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE ADDED CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTING A BLOCK WALL FENCE AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND THE FINDINGS AND CON- DITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 3 conforms with the development standards stated in Division 9 of the City's ordinance code. 2. The proposed parking is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, elevations and floor plans dated June 13, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for the land- scaping in the existing and proposed parking lot area subject to approval of the Director of Development Services. 3. The existing parking lot shall be restriped to clearly mark the spaces. 4. The project shall comply with all Department of Public Works standards. 5. Prior to development, the property owners shall file for and gain approval of a parcel map to consolidate the two lots into a legal building site. 6. The project shall comply with all Fire Department standards and shall acquire State Fire Marshal's approval of all plans prior to development. 7. Trash areas shall be enclosed on three sides by a six foot high solid masonry wall and equipped with a six foot gate facing away from the street. 8. A six foot high block wall fence shall be constructed on the north side of the property. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this con- ditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir USE PERMIT NO. 83-34/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-20 (Use Permit 82-26) Applicant: Donald Stine and Associates (Referred by the BZA) A request to permit the modification of a previously approved site plan and the modification of a condition of approval and a request H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 4 to permit the reduction of on the south side of Warner Goldenwest Street. required onsite parking on property located Avenue, approximately 525 feet west of Jim Barnes gave a brief presentation on the application. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the figure of reducing 5 parking spaces, her calculation was six spaces. Mr. Barnes stated that she was correct, it would reduce the number of spaces by six. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked about the width of the drive. Staff responded that the Public Works Department approved the width at 38 feet. The public hearing was opened. Michael Raphel spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Stine, who was on vacation. He gave a brief historical sketch of actions taken, to date, on this and the previously approved use permit (82-26) . An appeal of U.P. :82+t26-by the neighboringepizza-parlor was denied. Certain possibilities were discussed regarding the feasi- bility of providing signalization at the main entrance and elimination of left turn movement from the driveway between Carls Jr. and the bank building. The applicant stated he felt he has worked with the City and it was decided that, administerily, there was no other way to take care of it then to submit new site plans. He went on to describe the dif- ference in the site plan regarding restriping and resurfacing of the parking lot, widening the north drive and adding landscaping. He also stated that the suggestion of speed bumps was already complied with. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher referred to a letter attached to the staff report from Mr. Stine stating that he could not get the approval of an adjacent parcel owner on the new site plan. Mr. Raphel stated that this situation has now changed and the adjacent parcel owner would sign if the City approved the revised plan. Other questions raised by the Commissioners were discussed such as clarifying the parking (compact spaces), maintenance of the landscaped areas, existing easement agreements, etc. Mr. Del La Loza advised the Planning Commission that the expansion was both legal and appropriate. Mr. Palin again reminded the Commissioners that original entitlements were given piecemeal since parcels were "carved out" of the first shopping center on that lot. Commissioner Livengood stated that he supported approval but included original conditions which would change the proposed plan submitted on January 13 and revised on March 29, 1983. Mr. Palin suggested that, rather than treat it as a new condition, act on it and retain the original conditions, in other words, treat it as a revision to the previously approved use permit (82-26). ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN DATED 5-31-83 FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT NO. 82-26 WAS APPROVED WITH ALL CONDITIONS MAINTAINED AS LISTED BELOW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The modified site plan dated 5-31-83 shall be the approved site H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 5 plan for previously approved Use Permit No. 82-26. Applicant shall maintain all conditions imposed under this use permit. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None There was further discussion about the possibility of people parking along the curve interfering with the flow of traffic. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-34 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-20 WERE TABLED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/ DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta. Secretary Palin concisely delineated the action recommended by staff to approve the Specific Plan and recommend approval and adop- tion by the City Council. He further explained ramifications of Coastal Commission actions. Other staff members went on to explain in detail the document itself and specifics, and Pat Dawe from the consultant group (Arroyo), gave a lengthy slide presentation of some of the envisioned concepts and design themes suggested for the downtown. He stated that people have some anxiety and should first be told that the plan is a "long way from reality". He explained his role in the process was to factualize and communicate planning concepts. His presentation included the suggestion of a surfing museum and possibly an oil museum. He pointed out that the pier needed to be equipped with handicap access and that crossing Pacific Coast Highway was very dangerous. But that, on the other hand, the City represents youth and vitality and that this should be accented. His displays were colorful and consisted of mediterranean-type buildings with recessed third and fourth stories. Chairman Porter opened the public hearing and reminded those wishing to address the Commission on this matter to keep their comments to under .Five minutes. The following comments were made: Eileen Murphy asked that the Commission not take away "what we have - single family homes". H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 6 Roseanne Greenfield agreed that the blufftop park is a good point of the plan, however, she felt that the presentation made by Mr. Dawe was not a true representation of what will go in. She felt that what the City of Huntington Beach would end up with was a look like the City of Long Beach with many high rises, which she noted were missing from Mr. Dawe's presentation. She also stated that there were two misleading contentions: that the high price of land dictated the high rise buildings (this, she said, was false; that there were acres of beach property along the coast with low density development and that these other cities valued their open spacel; and that if the height of the buildings were lowerd it would lead to inverse condemnation. She stated that the Commission should consider what the people of Huntington Beach want and further consider restricting the high rise to Beach Boulevard and not throughout the downtown area. Tammy Warner stated that the slide presentation by Mr. Dawe was excellent, but agreed with the previous speaker, that it was not a true representation. She said that the height expressed in the document on page 18 was not a three-story limit, but rather a four- story limit, she subsequently suggested a 30-35 foot height limit. She also disagreed with the proposal to make Orange a major arterial. Dave Hall stated that the public supports low intensity along the coast. He cited Fashion Island in Newport Beach as being a good example of the kind of buffering that should occur in the downtown. He, again, reiterated the statement that he does not want to see another Long Beach. Jerry Williams spoke in favor of the Specific Plan. He stated it was a good plan and he "happens to like what they did to Downtown Long Beach". Ann Carter said many investors do not live in the City. She said, "We welcome change, but under three stories". She said the issue was the height limit and that "whatever is allowed, the maximum will be built". She quoted from an article out of the Long Beach Press Telegram dealing with a glut of office space and said this has "created a monster" in that town. She went on to say that Long Beach traffic congestion is tremendous and they have direct freeway access where Huntington Beach is not freeway accessible. Spence Sheldon, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the Specific Plan, stating that it is trying to capture the character of the City, "it's the kind of road map we should keep in mind". He said the people living in the area should sub- merge their own personal interests so that a plan can be developed. As an Aminoil USA employee, he pointed out his company's contributio and support of the blufftop park and assured the people present at the hearing that as this park shapes up, it will bring new pride for the City. He felt that the real question was, "do we want the status quo, or do we want to move along?" Charlene Stewart said she is for improvement, but "you are asking us II.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 7 to bite off more than we can chew - it's too much change all at once - don't put buildings up in front of the beach". Stan Cowen stated that the downtown redevelopment is the concern of all the people of the City of Huntington Beach and was concerned with the people's rights. He stated that every questionnaire that was sent out showed that people want slow development with limited height and density; that the people do not want a Downtown Long Beach or "Miami Beach of the West". He stated that City Council members may represent special interest groups, but it is to the detriment of the people to allow the implementation of this Specific Plan. He requested that the Commissioners deny the plan and then they "would sleep better tonight". DeWitt Easterly stated that although he now resides in Fullerton that he had planned to build a retirement home in Huntington Beach and "my plan has been shot down" by the proposed specific plan. He was concerned with senior housing originally proposed for the coast and now moved inland and he wondered how long it would take to implement the plan. Joe Genevese said he supports low intensity which, he said, goes along with the people's wishes. He stated that the drawings dis- played by Mr. Dawe were good but not realistic. He supported the height limit of three stories in the townlot area. When asked by the Chairman, what type of buffer he would recoitmend, he stated, "how about redwood trees"! Lance Jacot said that although he supports change and revitalization, the majority want lower density and lower height limits. He further stated that earlier reports recognized the problems in the area and asked that those considerations be included in the proposed plan. Verle Cowling said he was "glad to see so many young people present their statements so well". He agreed with lower density in the downtown. Richard Harlow stated he supported the Specific Plan. He said that from 6th Street and Goldenwest Street the 50 foot height limit was reasonable. However, he did suggest that the Commission consider a 75 foot setback from all public streets, rather than 50 feet, along with staggering building heights. Richard Plumber was in favor of low to mid -rise building heights. He said he did not like the idea of a 42" wall on PCH, he would rather see a 5 foot landscape easement. He voiced his disagreement with the Plan regarding the issue of price of the land related to high rise buildings. Natalie Kotsch read a letter from a resident who was unable to attend H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 8 the meeting (George Diry, Downtown Development Committee) who was in favor of a higher density than what was proposed in the Specific Plan. She further quoted, "if market value is to be established, it should be with an eye on the future and a possibility to adjust. To say a 5-year hence market rather than to accept today's deflated slump market, at a time which is unfavorable to real estate", this regarding public acquisition of land. He felt that zoning and density will attract the quality developers into the area, but plan needs to be economically feasible. Tom Conclin favored a 3-story height limit. He was concerned about the parking situation citing incidences where people are parking on the vacant land between Beach and Goldenwest. He said that every- one is pleased with the blufftop park but fears it too will be used for parking. He stated that although the Plan has merit in philosophy he is concerned about the guidelines. Leonard Wright distributed another letter (in addition to the one they received in their packet). He verbalized the essence of these letters - in favor of improvement as seen in the blufftop park but concerned about market potential. He agreed that better parking is needed and suggested a change in front yard setbacks. He said that the previous plans showed a lower intensity and this is what he favored. Ed Zschocke said there would be transportation and parking problems with implementation of a higher density as proposed in the Plan. He stated that in order for a plan to work in the downtown, you have to create a more intimate atmosphere with lower intensity development. He said that although the slides showed what looked like low intensity, the plan did not reflect it. Anita Livingston addressed her concerns to Mr. Tincher and the pro- posed Main -Pier Plan. She is concerned with the possibility of a tax increase. She stated that the trees in the City are not main- tained as it is and expressed her anxiety that "no matter what you say" it will happen anyway. Jim Hemsley expressed his concern that it seemed that the City Council and city planners are trying "to push these things through". He felt that it should be obvious that the people do not want high rise and that the plan should reflect the citizens' wants. Lois Freeman was concerned with traffic circulation, especially the cul-de-sacing of Main Street related to flow on 6th Street. She stated she would hate to see the pier "turn into a carnival" atmosphere. Keith Campbell stated he felt his privacy would be affected by the proposed plan. He is against the high rise buildings. Virginia George stated that she "doesn't want to move" out of the City. H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 9 The public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued regarding the Specific Plan. Commissioner Livengood had concern about the square footage with maximum built -out. Jeanine Frank stated that if the maximum was built with everything consolidated office space would amount to about 1 million square feet and commercial to 2.5 million square feet. However, she added, a more possible senario is 600 of maximum consolidation that would bring the figures down con- siderably. Chairman Porter discussed what seemed to him to be a dis- cripancy between what the staff was recommending in the Specific Plan zoning and the figures supplied by the Williams-Kuebelbeck group re- garding projected market feasibility (especially commercial). Mr. Dawe stated that the study was a conservative estimate. Discussion also took place regarding the traffic and circulation model, projection of vehicle trips, proposed street widening, access, phase redevelopment, fire and police protection as it is written in both the Specific Plan document and the EIR document. Mr. Dawe made the obser- vation that with regard to traffic problems in the downtown, the prob- lems are basically seasonal (beach traffic) and not all together im- possible to remedy. Commissioner Schumacher was concerned with rede- velopment costs to parts of the City not affected by project areas. She was also concerned about the census figures used from a report that is not current and, therefore, not accurate. She said she would like to'see comparisons of other beach communities. She said what she is hearing from the public is that a lot of money is being spent and nothing is getting done. She asked about the impact on the school district. Staff stated that they have reported a general decline in enrollment. She stated she could not support the EIR as written. Secretary Palin explained staff's recommendation agreeing that the study by Williams-Kuebelbeck was a conservative projection when you look at the long range. He said that in 1976, the City retained industrial which has created jobs in the community and improved the quality of the environment by making it possible for people to work in the community and not have to commute long distances. Mr. Tincher added that the Williams-Kuebelbeck study was preliminary in nature, that the tasks outlined for the consultants were broad and challenging and that it ignored the uniqueness of the area. Commissioner Livengood commented that "emotion has to go" to be able to come up with a workable plan for the downtown. He said that although he liked some of the ideas from Mr. Dawe's presentation (i.e. surfing hall of fame and oil museum), he did not think it was realistic for the Commission to make a decision without sufficient traffic and circulation figures. He also questioned parking on Lake Street, market feasibilities, conversion of residential streets to major arterials, adequacy of the EIR, cost effectiveness of a 4-story parking structure at 5th and Main, maintenance and landscaping. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he anticipates traffic and noise problems if the Specific Plan as written is adopted. His main concern is with traffic circulation especially inner -circulation with surround- ing cities. He asked staff if Adams Avenue could be utilized. He also said that in correspondence with OCTD they say that this city has H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 10 not "come through", to date, with comprehensive planning for public tra portation. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to explain the scheduling and time constraints that City Council was dealing with. Mr. Palin again asked the Commissioners to consider the suggestion of an adjourned meeting on June 28, due to the request of City Council. Mr. Tincher explained that City Council set the date of July 5, 1983, to hear the Main -Pier Redevelopment Plan Amendment of which the EIR for the Down- town Specific Plan addresses. And, further, another deadline is an- ticipated regarding funding under community development law, and that is July 18, 1983. This would give the City Council the 5th and possibly the llth, if necessary, to complete the redevelopment schedule. Commissioner Livengood commented that Commissioner Mirjahangir had requested a time line from staff and he -'had: not received it. He also stated that it bothered him that the Specific Plan document was sent to the Commissioners on Friday and a decision was expected tonight. A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Schumacher to continue the draft EIR, the zone change and the code amendment to the next regular meeting of July 6, 1983. Commissioner Higgins said he did not think it was an unrealistic request to have an adjourned meeting on June 28. The motion and second were withdrawn. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL FINAL DRAFT EIR 82-2, ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING ON JUNE 28, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir, Schumacher NOES: Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment No. 1 Establishing an amended redevelopment area which will allow the Re- development Agency to capture tax increment as a means to finance the costs necessary to remove blighting conditions. During the discussion on the EIR (82-2) Commissioner Livengood asked about the legality of public hearing process as it relates to the redevelopment plans. Mr. Tincher had responded that a public hearing was not required at the Planning Commission level. Opening discussion on the Redevelopment Plan dealt with this question. Mr. De La Loza felt that a public hearing at the Planning Commission was appropriate since the City Council has appointed this body to make recommendations. Chairman Porter also asked legal counsel if the EIR represented an amendment to an element in the General Plan. Mr. De La Loza responded that it does represent an amendment to the General Plan and for that reason should be the subject of appropriate, noticed public hearing with recommendation from this body to the City Council. Commissioner H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 11 Winchell stated that, although she did not believe that a redevelopment plan was a part of the General Plan, she did think that the plan should have public input. Mr. Tincher explained that the role that the Com- mission plays in this process is to make a finding that the proposed redevelopment plan amendment is consistent with the City General Plan and to forward that recommendation to the City Council; at that point there will be a public hearing before the City Council. He also stated that there are no land use policies in the redevelopment plan document; those policies established in the zoning ordinance dictate the land use for the area. Mr. Palin stated that the government code requires nine elements and the City has not elected to adopt a redevelopment element to the General Plan. He further assured the Commissioners that a number of facts could be supplied by the June 28th meeting. He reminded the Commission that other redevelopment plans had come before them without a public hearing. Chairman Porter still contended that the specific plan is tied to the redevelopment plan and "why operate on an assumption or presumption that public input is not necessary when all of this is referred up (to City Council) knowing what the community feels about it". Secretary Palin assured the Commissioners that it is discretionary with them to call for a public hearing, but further assured them that the public does have an influence. Commissioner Higgins was concerned with marketing in the redevelopment plan area. He stated, the basis is determined by what sort of development the pub- lic wants to see there and what the market will sustain. Commissioner Erskine made the statement that the staff did a good job and the con- sultants did a good job, "but your comfort level is higher than the public and we are trying to build a complicated boat but let the glue dry first". ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE MAIN -PIER REDE- VELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 WAS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JULY 6, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 83-3 Applicant: Earl Moseley A request to permit the extended use of a nonconforming freestanding pole sign for a three-year period at property located on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Florence Webb stated that documentation was on file from the property owner showing concurrence. The applicant, Mr. Moseley was present and stated that he concurred with the recommended conditions of approval. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 12 cash bond in the amount of $1500 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after three years from the date of approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said sign is located and remove such sign, and the cost of removal shall be de- ducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach and the remainder, if any, re- turned to the persdn depositing the bond. 2. The site plan and elevation dated June 1, 1983, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: The following discussion items, resulting from questions at the last regular meeting, were noted and filed: Weiser Lock R.V. Facility Landscaping Requirements, Landscaping Requirements For Remodeled, Commercial Centers at the Southest and Northeast Corners of Edinger and Springdale. DISTRIBUTION ITEM: Secretary Palin distributed the participation agreement regarding the senior citizen project near Terry Park. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the June 20, 1983 City Council meeting for the Commissioners' information. He said that the requested expansion of Pacifica Specific Plan was approved as the Commissioner had recommended; and that an item was tabled regarding stockpiling. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher had a concern about a chain link fence along Goldenwest Street and requested a copy of the developer agreement for the equestrian center located in Huntington Central Park. Secretary Palin also stated that he would find out if the chain link fence was only temporary. Commissioner Mirjahangir gave a brief report on the transportation semi- nar at U.C. Irvine which he attended on June 11, 1983. H.B. Planning Commission June 21, 1983 Page 13 Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 11:50 P.M. to an Adjourned Meeting on June 28, 1983, starting at 7:00 P.M. :jlm 1 r] Marcus M. Porter, rman