Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-06APPROVED AS CORRECTED ON 8-2-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1983 - 6:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1983, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: The Chairman asked that Item C-5 be taken up first as the applicant had requested a continuance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-14 Applicant: Don Hartfelder A request to permit the construction of an 8-unit condominium develop- ment located on the west side of Newland, approximately 575 feet south of Slater Avenue. Public hearing was opened and continued. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-14 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 19, 1983, AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Florence Webb asked the Commissioners if they would consider taking action on Item C-4 as there was a request by the property owner to continue the item. Commissioner Schumacher suggested waiting until later in the meeting as the applicant (who was not the property owner) was not present. H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 2 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 (EIR 82-2 Approved 6-28-83, Item continued from that meeting) 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 Specific Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta. Discussion to resume with Section 3.3.2, Parking, and to end at 7:00 PM to resume discussion on the redevelopment item. Staff advised the Commissioners of the handouts distributed to them. Mike Adams recommended the addition of a paragraph regarding a Mediterranean style architecture. Commissioner Schumacher recalled that, at the last meeting, it was decided to call it "ocean -related" rather than Mediterranean. Chairman Porter suggested that that change in wording could be incorporated into that section. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 16 WAS ADDED DEALING WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Erskine Discussion ensued regarding public transportation. Commissioner Livengood asked if the Environmental Board had some input regarding buses travelling through the downtown area. Claudette Dupuy stated that the Board did review the material at one of their meetings. Commissioner Livengood was also concerned about possibly losing the bike trail with proposals in the Plan regarding Lake Street. Mike Adams assured him that it would be amended. Commissioner Erskine suggested that some wording be added to the second paragraph on page 36 under Circulation, regarding pedestrian system tied in with the parking structure so that commuters, shoppers and local residents would be encouraged to walk through the retail areas. He also suggested a separation of these groups from the beach goers. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THESE CHANGES WERE MADE AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood asked staff to address Paul Cook's memo from Public Works, dealing with low fencing in the median on PCH. Staff responded that the design of the median will be incorporated into the design guidelines. H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 3 Commissioner Mirjahangir referred to page 37 regarding overpasses, he asked if staff had considered underpasses. Secretary Palin stated that it was felt by providing a plaza area, that option would be left open, for some date in the future. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE MAIN STREET INTERSECTION WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR OVERPASS OR UNDERPASS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Discussion went back to the median on PCH to discourage pedestrian mid - block crossing. Commissioner Schumacher understood that this was under the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Staff agreed with this statement. Chairman Porter suggested striking the reference to a low fence on page 37 and inserting "something permanent and aesthetically pleasing consistent with the downtown theme. He was also concerned about the maintenance. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CHAIRMAN PORTER'S SUGGESTION REGARDING THE MEDIAN ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Discussion took place on street circulation, specifically the extension of Walnut from Lake to Beach Boulevard. Chairman Porter was concerned about addressing circulation in the specific plan document, aside from dealing with it in the Circulation Element Amendment. Commissioner Livengood shared that concern and added that the "intent was to delete Sixth Street as a major arterial". He said that it was deleted on page 29 and left in on page 23. Discussion also followed on the Greer traffic study. Les Evans stated that the latest information received from Greer would probably be the last the City would be receiving. Commissioner Erskine asked if a design theme in the Main Street plaza area was incorporated into the document. Mike Adams responded that it was not, but would be appropriate in the design concept section. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO IN- CORPORATE AN OCEAN -RELATED THEME IN THE DESIGN CONCEPT SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 4 Discussion resumed on the median to discouraging pedestrians from Signalizing was discussed. in Pacific Coast Highway with regard crossing in the middle of a block. Commissioner Livengood referenced the correspondence from the Arroyo Group, dated May 13, 1983, regarding an arts park, museum and surfing hall of fame. He favored this being included in the document. Commissioner Erskine also wanted something of this nature similar to what Laguna Beach has, however, he went on to discuss financing of such projects. Referring to page 44, in every instance where it states "This type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed" he suggested that it read public/private to indicate a definite option. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Discussion followed on the possibility of new sewer lines being installed. Les Evans agreed that this may be necessary. It was suggested that re- ference to a new trunk line going in beneath Walnut Avenue be changed to reflect the fact that construction is completed. This change was noted by staff on pages 47 and 49. Commissioner Winchell stated for t_tie record that, not being able to solve anything from a market study, she would solve it from response from the people that reside in the downtown. She said if you pare down the square footage by 25 or 30 percent it would bring down the height. She did not favor increased heights in the Townlot area; she felt that the public was not benefiting from increased heights and densities. Staff called attention to an item handed out to shown a boundary change in District 10 to include the parking lot to the project extended to align with 7th Street. Commissioner Livengood stated that he favored a 3-story limit in District 1. Chairman Porter stopped the discussion to resume at the Adjourned Meeting of July 12, 1983. REDEVELOPMENT MAIN -PIER PROJECT AREA EXPANSION PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 The expansion of.the Main -Pier Redevelopment Area to include approximat 350 acres between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Downtown Spe- cific Plan Area) and 27.5 acres at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue. The public hearing is the result of minute action taken by the Planning Commission. Tom Tincher gave a presentation with his main points being that the H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 5 Planning Commission needs to determine if redevelopment should be used as a tool and a resource for improvement. That redevelopment gives potential investors a guarantee and the City has property to bring about implementation. He stated that eminent domain is a "black eye" and the City is not trying to do that. He also brought up the advantages of redevelopment such as stricter relocation benefits to displaced residents. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked who would be financing re- location, the City or the developer. Mr. Tincher stated that was an agency responsibility, however, he said as we work with developers they may pick up the obligation. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the City is building a public faciilty, do you have to go out for public bid or can you choose a developer to do the work. Mr. Tincher said it would depend on how the facility was constructed. If it was separate and not tied to an agreement then yes, we would go out to bid, but if it is part of an agreement the City would not have to go out to bid. She was particularly concerned about a parking lot on the beach. He said in this case they would go out to bid. Other concerns by the Commissioners included a suggestion by Commissioner Winchell to put off the amendment for one year, a concern by Chairman Porter of placement of funds and a request for amount of acreage that the City owns. The Chairman opened the public hearing. The following persons addressed the Planning Commission: Dean Albright commented on rolling back residential, planting rose bushes in the median in PCH to discourage mid -block crossing and informed the Commission that a committee was being formed to deal with air pollution and noise impacts. Richard Harlow spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce stating that they support the redevelopment plan amendment as submitted. Commissioner Erskine asked if Mr. Harlow believed the plan will pro- tect existing businesses. Mr. Harlow stated that nothing can be 100%, that any property owner has the right to do with his building as he sees fit and that this philosophy has to carry over. Judith Severy of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors stated that they have adopted a resolution in support of revitalization of the City of Huntington Beach. Verle Cowlig stated that he does not understand how anyone could make a decision without enough information given to them. He said that 60% of the property owners "is probably controlled by the same organization". He felt the City is "putting the squeeze on the small people". His other concern dealt with traffic circulation and his feeling that the City is forcing people to do what they do not want to do. Jim LeGuy spoke in favor of the plan. He said "do something with the business community." Joanne Kessell said she is for development but against redevelopment. H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 6 She did not agree that redevelopment was necessary, that once the zoning was in place there"would be no problem with development. She said "if 60o can force 40o to sell out, how can property rights be preserved". Gloria Hemsley stated she was against the 60o figure. She also in- formed the Commissioners that Leonard Wright was unable to attend the meeting due to hospitalization. Ann Carter stated she was against redevelopment but not development. She did not believe there was enough "thought behind this!'. Doug Langevin said he was not in favor of redevelopment that it would create traffic problems. He said as far as blight was concerns he has never seen a street cleaner in -the area of the old civic center site. Keith Campbell was concerned about the proposed widening of Lake Street. He said "people will be shocked by redevelopment taking place in their area". Lois Freeman said you will encourage traffic to go down "my street" and "I may have to move but who would buy my house". The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked for clari- fication on the proposed action. Mr. Tincher said that the Planning Commission is being asked to find if the plan is consistent with the General Plan and, if so, to adopt the amendment. He further emphasized that the plan itself does not establish land use policies, that is accomplished by the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ON PAGE 14 UNDER LIMITATION OF BUILDING DENSITY (3RD PARAGRAPH) AND TO STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE UNDER LIMITATION ON TYPE, SIZE AND HIEGHT OF BUILDINGS (4TH PARAGRAPH) ON PAGE 14. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Winchell asked why the document itself was written in such a manner. She favored a format similar to ordinance changes where any new material is underlined. She went on to state for the record that she acknowledged that a lot of people believe that without this "packag we are doing nothing, "but with the adoption of the (initial) redevelop ment area, we are doing something and we do have a start". She said she would like to see how Huntington Beach handles redevelopment and wait at least one year for this outcome. She stated she would vote against expanding the area. H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 7 Commissioner Erskine asked why the area between 6th Street and Golden - west was included, besides the reason of a tax base. Mr. Tincher responded that it was due to oil still in the area that the plan is to work with the oil companies and find ways to consolidate the pro- perties and redevelopment is the vehicle to accomplish this. He further stated that it would provide a resource that could lead to completion of the blufftop park and address the issue of widening of PCH and pro- viding public parking. Commissioner Livengood requested a copy of the transmittal to City Council if the amended plan is approved. The Chairman recommended that this be part of a motion dealing with Area 2. Discussion ensued regarding the 60% figure. Mr. Palin suggested that a different percentage could be considered. Commissioner Schumacher recalled that the LCP encouraged block consolidation "letting private enterprise do it on its own". She felt that by including both sides of Pacific Coast Highway it is "pushing too hard". She felt rather that the downtown corridor should be expanded. She suggested that just the beach side of PCH be incorporated into Area 2. Discussion then followed on where tax monies would and could be spent. Tom Tincher recommended that eminent domain be removed from all residential areas, but retain it in the oil property area. Commissioner Erskine recommended leaving Area 2 out of redevelopment plan area. Chairman Porter was concerned that this might make a dif- ference in the 2/3 voting requirement if the portion was amended. Art De La Losa stated that if the Planning Commission recommended against the amendment it would require a 2/3 vote to override that recommendation. However, after conferring with Tom Clark (attorney to Redevelopment Agency) the language in the resolution could be changed to read "proposed plan as submitted to the Planning Commission conforms to the General Plan of the City as it may be amended from time to time". Chairman Porter also felt that it needs to conform not only to the General Plan but also to the Master Plan and Streets and Highways. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE AREA 5 WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR AREA 6 WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE AREA 3 WAS ADOPTED AS PRE- SENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 8 AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE AREA 4 AS PRESENTED. DISCUSSION ENSUED. Commissioner Livengood asked how the plan would affect the mobile home parks within that area boundary. Mr. Tincher stated that the recommen- dation to City Council is that a committee be established and a study made of relocation, that supplementary assistance be provided - that this would provide additional assistance under the mobile home ordi- nance. The second on the motion, Commissioner Erskine, recommended amending the motion to include the Planning Commission's support of such a recommendation to the City Council to establish a committee. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Livengood thought it might be a better idea to exclude the mobile home parks from Area 4. Mr. Tincher pointed out that Mr. Ingrams' involvement as a mobile home tenant, found redevelopment to be an added resource to help solve the problem and not a means to expedite that displacement. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 7 WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Higgins to include Area 2. This motion failed for lack of a second. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DELETE AREA 2 FROM THE PLAN AMENDMENT. DISCUSSION ENSUED. Chairman Porter stated he was against the motion to delete Area 2 as it would impede whatever increments could be captured for the blufftop park area. Commissioner Livengood made a motion to amend the main motion to draw a line between 6th and 7th Streets to reduce Area 2. This motion failed for lack of a second. THE MAIN MOTION TO DELETE AREA 2 FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 9 AYES: Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARY LINE IN SUBAREA 2 AS FOLLOWS: On the alley between 6th and 7th from Walnut to PCH, up PCH to Goldenwest, beach -side of PCH down to the boundary between Area 2 and Area 1; everything on the inland side of PCH is excluded from Area 2 except a half -block, one block deep between 6th and 7th Streets. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Two comments from the Commissioners were incorporated as changes in the Negative Declaration document, 1) Commissioner Livengood felt that Question #3 and #4 should read "maybe" because of traffic circulation impacts and, 2) Commissioner Schumacher felt that the impression was given that a certain project was completed at Beach and Atlanta when in fact it has not been constructed. The following paragraph was added to make that correction: "A portion of the area at Beach and Atlanta is approved to be de- veloped as an apartment complex. The proposed apartment complex received a Negative Declaration (No. 82-41) last year. There is also an existing commercial area on the site. This area was de- veloped prior to the adoption of CEQA, therefore, no environmental documentation was prepared for this site." ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-15 WAS APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter reminded staff to rework the actual document for the sake of clarity and to include this recommendation in the motion for approval: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1309 APPROVING THE MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMEND- MENT NO. 1 WITH ADDITION IN FINDING 1-a THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMS H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 10 TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS IT MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. FURTHER, STAFF DIRECTED TO CLARIFY THE DOCUMENT FOR CONTINUITY, AND -RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-25 (APPEAL) Appellant: Councilman Ron Pattinson Applicant: Enterprise Rent-A-Car An appeal by Councilman Ron Pattinson to a condition of approval per- taining to irrevocable offer to dedicate property for ultimate right- of-way. The original request for a use permit was to construct an 863 square foot building in conjunction with a car rental agency. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the BZA's condition of approval. The public hearing was opened. Dick Sass, one of the property owners, stated that there were 12 lots involved; that a certain number of feet were dedicated to the City but the Edison Company was in the way so they could not get "20 feet off the end". Now they will take it out of the south side of Warner. His contention was that if the drive is gone you would completely screen off the business. Dave Willie, repre- senting Enterprise Rent-A-Car stated that it would cause property -to be looked at as two parcels. He stated, "if we were to buy the property none of this would come up because it would be two property owners, the fact that he (Mr. Sass) owns both parcels" we are being penalized. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Palin stated that these are not legal lots they are remnant pieces. That all of these small lots constitute a building site which is legal however, they have never been consolidated which is now a requirement for the applicant before building. Commissioner Higgins asked if this requirement was for creation of two parcels. He said that was correct. Commissioner Higgins asked what reason the City would have for not accepting the dedication on Warner. Mr. Palin stated that it would come at some time in the future when the City is ready for additional improvements. He referred to Public Works. Mr. Evans stated some time within the next three years. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE APPEAL OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON USE PERMIT NO. 83-25 WAS DENIED - BZA DECISION UPHELD, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Approval of conditions on the use permit has been upheld by the Planning Commission. Applicant shall maintain all conditions of H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 11 approval previously imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments under this use permit. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-18 Applicant: The Bank of Orange County A request for a change of zone from "Q"C3, qualified general business district to Section "B" Townlot Specific Plan - Area One, located at the northwest corner of 17th Street and Olive Avenue. Florence Webb added that staff further recommends that the entire .26 acre area be rezoned back to Townlot Specific Plan to avoid support zoning. She clarified that the applicant was requesting the change for .13 acre parcel only. The property owner, Mr. James Foxx submitted a letter to the Planning Commission asking for a continuance as he was not able to attend the meeting and went on record in opposition to the zone change request. Commissioner Livengood asked if the parcels could be voted on separately. Mr. Palin said that since it was advertised both ways, it would be at the discretion of the Commissioners. The public hearing was opened. Craig Lacy, representing the Bank of Orange County stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation for approval of the zone change. The public hearing was closed. A brief discussion took place regarding the qualifying zone. Commis- sioner Schumacher asked if the area to the north was the site for new homes on 25 foot lots, and if so, she was concerned about making this a major thoroughfare with residential there. Ms. Webb said that it was a development site. Commissioner Winchell asked Mr. De La Losa if the letter from the property owner asking for a continuance precluded them from taking action. He replied that the letter was basically waiving the right to be heard. A motion was made by Erskine to continue the item to July 19, 1983. This motion failed to attain a second. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-18 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-7 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FIND- INGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change on 0.26 acres from (Q)C3 to Townlot Specific Plan -Area One, Section B is consistent with the medium density designation in the General Plan and would enhance the residential character of the Townlot area. 2. A residential use on the 0.26 acre property would be compatible H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 12 with the existing and future land uses on the surrounding propertie 3. The proposed zone change only on the corner parcel of 0.13 acres from (Q)C3 to Townlot Specific Plan Area One, Section B would leave an isolated parcel with the (Q)C3 zoning that would not be compatible with existing and future land uses on surrounding properties. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Equestrian Trail, Bolsa Chica Park to Santa Ana River ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE JULY 19, 1983 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Central Park Stables, Chain Link Fence on Goldenwest n I Florence Webb informed the Commissioners that their question concerning the chain link fence on Goldenwest Street was addressed in the staff report; that indeed, it was a permanent fence and that the City Council waived any permits on the property. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was under the impression that in the Civic District, a chain link fence was not aesthetic. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE MEMOS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES SETTING FORTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERN ABOUT IMPROVE- MENTS IN CENTRAL PARK NOT BEING IN CONFORMANCE TO "CD" STANDARDS. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine asked the Commissioners if they were interested in a gas shut-off device in connection with possible event of an earthquake. H.B. Planning Commission July 6, 1983 Page 13 Vacation schedules were briefly discussed. Commissioner Livengood said he would be out of town for the July 19th meeting; Commissioner Winchell said she would also be out of town for that meeting. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:00 P.M. to a sepcial meeting on July 12, 1983, to continue discussion on the Downtown Specific Plan. Marcus M. Porter, Chairman LJ